THE  LIBRARY 
OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 

GIFT  OF 

Commodore  Byron  Me Candle ss 


HARVARD 
HISTORICAL     STUDIES 


PUBLISHED  UNDER  THE  DIRECTION  OF  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF 
HISTORY  FROM  THE  INCOME  OF 


fatten  Com? 


VOLUME  XV 


HARVARD  HISTORICAL  STUDIES. 


I.  The  Suppression  of  the  African 
Slave-Trade  to  the  United  States  of 
America,  1638-1870.  By  W.  E.  B.  Du 
BoiS,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  History  in 
Atlanta  University.  8vo.  $  1.50  net. 

n.  The  Contest  over  the  Ratification 
of  the  Federal  Constitution  in  Massa- 
chusetts. By  S.  B.  HARDING,  A.M., 
Professor  of  History  in  Indiana  Uni- 
versity. 8vo.  $  1.25  net. 

m.  A  Critical  Study  of  Nullification  in 
South  Carolina.  By  D.  F.  HOUSTON, 
A.M.,  President  of  the  University  of 
Texas.  8vo.  $  1.25  net. 

IV.  Nominations  for  Elective  Office  in 
the  United  States.    By  FREDERICK 
W.  DALLINGER,  A.M.,  Member  of  the 
Massachusetts  Senate.  8vo.    $1.50  net. 

V.  A  Bibliography  of  British  Munici- 
pal History.     Including   Guilds   and 
Parliamentary     Representation.        By 
CHARLES  GROSS,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of 
History  in  Harvard  University.     8vo. 

$  2.50  net. 

VI.  The  Liberty  and  Free  Soil  Parties 
in  the  Northwest.      By  THEODORE 
CLARKE  SMITH,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of 
History  in  the  University  of  Michigan. 
8vo.  $1.75  net. 


VII.  The  Provincial  Governor  in  the 
English  Colonies  of  North  America. 

By  EVARTS  BOUTELL  GREENE,  Ph.D., 

of  the  University  of  Illinois.     8vo. 

$  1.50  net. 

Vm.  The  County  Palatine  of  Durham. 
A  Study  in  Constitutional  History.  By 
G.  T.  LAPSLEY,  Ph.D.,  Fellow  of 
Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  8vo. 

$  2.00  net. 

IX.  The  Anglican  Episcopate  and  the 
American    Colonies.       By    ARTHUR 
LYON    CROSS,    Ph.D.,    Assistant  Pro- 
fessor in  the  University  of  Michigan. 
8vo.  $2.50  net. 

X.  The  Administration  of  the  Ameri- 
can Revolutionary  Army.    By  Louis 
CLINTON  HATCH,  Ph.D.    8vo. 

$  1.50  net. 

XI.  The  Civil  Service  and  the  Patron- 
age.   By  CARL  RUSSELL  FISH,  Ph.D., 
Assistant  Professor  in  the  University  of 
Wisconsin.     8vo.  $  2.00  net. 

XII.  The  Development  of  Freedom  of 
the  Press  in  Massachusetts.    By  C. 
A.  DUNIWAY,  Associate   Professor  of 
History  in  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  Univer- 
sity.   8vo.  $  1.50  net. 

XIII.  The  Seigniorial  System  in  Can- 
ada.   By  W.  B.  MUNRO,  Ph.D.,  LL.D., 
Assistant  Professor  of  Government  in 
Harvard  University.    8vo. 

$  2.00  net. 


XIV.  The  Frankpledge  System.    By  WILLIAM  ALFRED  MORRIS,  Ph.D.,  Assistant 
Professor  of  European  History  in  the  University  of  Washington.     8vo.      $  1.75  net. 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK. 


THE    PUBLIC   LIFE   OF 
JOSEPH    DUDLEY 

A   STUDY    OF 

THE    COLONIAL    POLICY    OF    THE    STUARTS 
IN    NEW    ENGLAND 

1660-1715 


BY 

EVERETT   KIMBALL,   PH.D. 

ASSOCIATE  PROFESSOR   OF   HISTORY  IN   SMITH   COLLEGE 


LONGMANS,   GREEN,   AND   CO. 

FOURTH   AVENUE  &  30TH   STREET,   NEW  YORK 

LONDON,   BOMBAY,   AND   CALCUTTA 

I9II 


Copyright,  1911, 
BY  THE  PRESIDENT  AND  FELLOWS  OF  HARVARD  COLLEGE. 


NorfnooC 

J.  8.  Gushing  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 
Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

THE  officials  sent  to  New  England  by  the  Stuarts  were 
harshly  dealt  with  by  the  early  historians  of  Massachusetts. 
Some  attempts  have  been  made  to  rehabilitate  Andros  and 
Randolph,  but  little  has  been  done  for  Joseph  Dudley,  whose 
career  was  longer  than  that  of  any  other  official  in  early 
Massachusetts.  It  is  not,  however,  the  purpose  of  this 
monograph  to  meet  the  criticisms  of  Dudley's  character; 
his  personality,  indeed,  though  interesting,  was  singularly 
unlovely.  I  have  rather  attempted  to  examine  the  Stuart 
colonial  policy  and  to  set  forth  the  practical  political  prob- 
lems connected  with  its  application  in  New  England,  and 
to  show  the  parts  played  by  the  various  agencies  connected 
with  its  development.  I  have  viewed  Dudley  as  an  English 
official  charged  with  the  execution  of  the  English  policy, 
and  although  taking  into  consideration  his  personality,  I  have 
investigated  more  particularly  the  problems  and  difficulties 
which  faced  all  royal  officials  in  New  England  at  that  period. 
Joseph  Dudley  was  chosen  partly  because  he  has  been  so 
savagely  attacked,  but  largely  because  in  a  study  of  his 
career  I  was  able  to  touch  all  the  New  England  colonies 
and  New  York  as  well,  and  to  cover  the  period  from  the 
first  imposition  of  the  Stuart  policy  upon  New  England  until 
the  accession  of  George  I. 

I  wish  to  acknowledge  the  kind  assistance  that  has  been 
extended  to  me  by  the  authorities  and  officials  of  the  Library 
of  Harvard  University,  the  Smith  College  Library,  the 


vi  PREFACE 

American  Antiquarian  Society,  the  Hampshire  County  Bar 
Association  ;  and  the  officials  in  charge  of  the  Massachusetts 
Archives,  the  British  Museum,  the  Privy  Council  Office, 
the  Public  Record  Office,  and  the  Society  for  the  Propaga- 
tion of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts  in  London,  and  the 
Bodleian  Library  of  Oxford  University.  Acknowledgments 
are  also  due  to  Professor  C.  M.  Andrews  of  Yale  University, 
who  kindly  put  his  expert  knowledge  of  the  English  archives 
at  my  disposal  while  I  was  carrying  on  the  investigation  of 
the  English  material.  Especial  acknowledgments  are  due 
to  Professor  A.  B.  Hart  of  Harvard  University,  under  whose 
direction  a  dissertation  was  prepared  upon  the  same  subject 
and  offered  in  partial  fulfilment  for  the  requirements  of  the 
Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  in  1904.  But,  above  all, 
I  am  under  the  greatest  obligations  to  Professor  Edward 
Channing,  who  first  suggested  the  subject  and  under  whose 
direction  the  early  investigation  was  carried  on,  and  who  has 
given  freely  of  his  time  in  reading  and  criticising  the  manu- 
script and  proof. 

EVERETT   KIMBALL. 

SMITH  COLLEGE,  April,  1911. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER   I 

PAGE 

THE  EARLY  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH   DUDLEY  AND  THE  Loss  OF  THE 

MASSACHUSETTS  CHARTER,  1660-1686 i 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  TEMPORARY  POLICY  OF  THE  RESTORATION:  JOSEPH  DUD- 
LEY PRESIDENT  OF  THE  MASSACHUSETTS  COUNCIL,  MAY  TO 
DECEMBER,  1686 22 

CHAPTER   III 

NEW  ENGLAND  REGULATED:    JOSEPH   DUDLEY  AND   THE  RULE 

OF  ANDROS,  1686-1689 39 

CHAPTER   IV 

SCHEMING  FOR  OFFICE:  JOSEPH  DUDLEY  MEMBER  OF  THE" COUN- 
CIL FOR  NEW  YORK,  DEPUTY-GOVERNOR  OF  THE  ISLE  OF 
WIGHT,  MEMBER  OF  PARLIAMENT,  1689-1702  57 

CHAPTER   V 

JOSEPH  DUDLEY  GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  :  PARLIAMENTARY 

RELATIONS  WITH  THE  GENERAL  COURT 76 

CHAPTER   VI 

JOSEPH  DUDLEY  CAPTAIN-GENERAL  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  :  MILI- 
TARY AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS 100 

vii 


viii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  VII 

PAGE 

DUDLEY'S  RELATIONS  WITH  THE  COLONIES  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE, 

RHODE  ISLAND,  AND  CONNECTICUT 134 

CHAPTER   VIII 

THE  CURRENCY  AND  BANKING  PROBLEMS  DURING  DUDLEY'S  AD- 
MINISTRATION AS  GOVERNOR 157 

CHAPTER   IX 
DUDLEY'S  FIGHT  TO  RETAIN  OFFICE 175 

CHAPTER  X 
THE  MOTIVES  OF  DUDLEY'S  ACTIONS 204 

APPENDICES 

A.  ROYAL  COMMISSION  TO  JOSEPH   DUDLEY,  GOVERNOR  OF  THE 

PROVINCE    OF    MASSACHUSETTS    BAY   IN    NEW    ENGLAND. 
APRIL  i,  1702 211 

B.  LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  CITED 219 


INDEX 


230 


THE   PUBLIC    LIFE   OF 
JOSEPH    DUDLEY 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  EARLY  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH   DUDLEY    AND    THE   LOSS 
OF  THE  MASSACHUSETTS  CHARTER 

1660-1686 

THE  life  of  Joseph  Dudley  falls  between  the  period  of  the 
settlement  of  New  England  and  the  American  Revolution. 
His  public  career  did  not  begin  until  Charles  II  had  been  on 
the  throne  for  more  than  ten  years;  and  most  of  his  asso- 
ciates were  men  of  the  second  generation,  who  faced  new 
conditions  and  were  called  upon  to  solve  other  problems  than 
those  of  the  first  planters.  The  material  condition  of  Mas- 
sachusetts had  also  changed.  Commerce  had  flourished, 
wealth  had  increased,  and  a  party  devoted  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  these  interests  had  arisen  and  was  strongly  opposing 
the  leaders  of  the  first  generation  of  settlers,  who  recalled 
the  time  when  Massachusetts  existed  independently  of  both 
crown  and  commonwealth.  By  birth  and  training  Joseph 
Dudley  belonged  to  the  party  of  independence;  but  his 
career  was  a  direct  contradiction  to  his  inheritance,  and  was 
spent  in  a  consistent  endeavor  to  realize  the  aims  of  the 
moderate  party  of  the  seventeenth  century,  which  developed 
into  the  loyalist  party  of  the  eighteenth.  This  is  the  key 
to  his  political  activity,  and  he  should  be  judged  by  the  aims 


2  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

of  this  party  rather  than  by  the  ideals  of  the  first  planters. 
This  policy,  too,  explains  his  strength  and  his  weakness, 
which  made  him  at  once  influential  in  England  and  the  most 
hated  man  in  the  colonies,  —  a  man  of  great  ambitions,  who 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  party  of  independence  has  been 
justly  termed  a  traitor,  but  whose  real  aims  have  been  too 
little  understood. 

Joseph  Dudley  was  born  in  Roxbury,  September  22,  1647, 
the  son  of  Thomas  Dudley,  the  second  governor  of  Massa- 
chusetts, who  was  over  seventy  years  of  age  when  Joseph, 
his  fourth  son,  was  born.1  The  stern  and  intolerant  char- 
acter of  the  father  was  not  inherited  by  the  son ;  nor  did  he 
receive  much  training  from  his  father,  who  died,  leaving  him 
a  child  of  four  years.  His  mother  soon  married  the  Reverend 
John  Allen,  minister  of  the  church  in  Dedham,  with  whom 
Joseph  lived  and  who  was  responsible  for  his  upbringing. 
He  received  as  good  an  education  as  the  colony  afforded,  and 
was  graduated  from  Harvard  College  in  1665  with  the  inten- 
tion of  becoming  a  minister,  like  his  stepfather.  Deciding, 
however,  to  enter  the  field  of  politics,  he  was  made  a  free- 
man of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Company  in  1672, 2  and  the 
next  year  was  elected  to  the  General  Court  as  representative 
from  Roxbury,3  from  which  town  he  was  returned  every  year 
until  1676.  During  the  war  with  Philip  he  was  chosen  one 
of  the  commissioners  to  accompany  Major  Savage  in  his 
attempt  to  hold  the  Narragansetts  in  obedience,  and  was 
also  present  at  the  destruction  of  the  Narragansett  stockade, 
where  the  power  of  the  Indians  was  broken.4  It  was  possibly  in 

1  Savage,  Genealogical  Dictionary,  ii.  76 ;  Dean  Dudley,  History  of  the  Dudley 
Family,  162. 

1  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  iv.  pt.  ii.  585. 

3  Ibid.  550. 

4  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  i.  273. 


EARLY  LIFE  — LOSS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  CHARTER      3 

recognition  of  his  services  there  that  he  was  elected  to  the  Court 
of  Assistants  (the  upper  house  of  the  Massachusetts  legisla- 
ture),1 to  which  he  was  returned  every  year,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  1684,  until  the  charter  of  the  Company  was  revoked. 

Meanwhile  his  position  was  strengthened  by  the  marriage 
of  his  sisters.  One,  Anne,  much  his  senior,  had  married 
Simon  Bradstreet,  the  leader  of  the  moderate  party  and  the 
last  governor  of  the  Company  under  the  first  charter.  An- 
other had  married  Major-General  Denison,  who  consistently 
supported  his  brother-in-law  and  was  known  as  a  prerogative 
man.  Dudley  himself  married  the  daughter  of  Edward 
Tyng,  who  was  an  Assistant  for  over  twelve  years  and  later 
sat  in  the  Council  of  his  son-in-law.  Thus,  through  inherited 
prestige  and  connections  by  marriage,  Dudley  exercised  con- 
siderable influence.  The  position  of  Assistant  was  peculiarly 
suited  to  show  his  abilities  as  an  administrator,  and  he  was 
frequently  put  upon  committees.2  In  1676  he  was  one  of  the 
committee  appointed  to  draw  up  an  answer  to.  the  king's 
letter;  from  1677  to  1681  he  served  as  one  of  the  commis- 
sioners for  the  United  Colonies ;  in  1679  he  was  on  committees 
appointed  to  revise  the  laws  and  to  determine  the  boundaries 
between  the  colonies  of  Massachusetts  Bay  and  New  Plym- 
outh. He  was  also  frequently  chosen  to  treat  with  the 
Indians,  in  dealing  with  whom  he  showed  such  skill  and 
gained  such  insight  and  knowledge  of  their  habits  that  his 
reputation  as  an  Indian  negotiator,  though  recognized  in 
England,  was  regarded  with  suspicion  by  the  colonists. 

The  conditions  in  Massachusetts  and  Boston  were  chang- 
ing. The  purposes  of  the  original  planters  had  hitherto 
been  the  ideals  of  the  governors  and  the  people.  The  aims 

1  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  v.  77. 
*Ibid.  100,  237,  244,  270,  315,  329,  etc. 


4  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

of  the  clergy  and  the  magistrates,  generally  working  in  har- 
mony, had  prevailed,  and  had  governed  the  morals  and  the 
political  policy  of  the  colony ;  and  the  stern  idealism  of  Win- 
throp  or  Endicott  had  overborne  the  opposition  of  any  who 
were  inclined  to  substitute  their  own  political  or  material 
interests  for  the  ideals  of  the  founders.  But  now,  on  the  one 
hand,  England  was  coming  into  closer  touch  with  the  colony, 
attempting  to  enforce  her  rule,  and  at  the  same  time  offer- 
ing material  advantages  to  men  who  were  willing  to  accept 
this  control.  On  the  other  hand,  Massachusetts  was  no 
longer  completely  dominated  by  the  old  clerical  party.  The 
population  was  increasing  more  from  natural  causes  than 
by  the  immigration  of  those  bitterly  opposed  to  England, 
and  many  men  of  the  second  generation  who  had  not  experi- 
enced persecution  in  England  were  willing  to  assent  to  some 
closer  relations  with  the  mother  country.  The  colony,  more- 
over, was  prospering  and  increasing  in  wealth ;  trade  was 
becoming  more  important,  and  was  not  only  adding  more 
resources  to  the  community,  but  was  arousing  new  ideas  and 
influences;  and  as  the  stake  of  the  colonists  was  larger  they 
grew  more  cautious  and  less  ready  to  risk  their  increasing 
prosperity  in  open  conflict.  In  addition,  there  was  a  dis- 
satisfied element  in  Massachusetts  which  had  suffered  at  the 
hands  of  the  colonial  government.  Many  of  this  class  had 
attempted  to  gain  redress  from  England ;  but  hitherto  Eng- 
land had  been  able  to  give  them  little  effective  aid.  From 
1660,  however,  the  government  of  the  Restoration  was  will- 
ing to  listen  to  these  complaints  and  ready  to  give  active 
help  in  enforcing  its  judgments,  thus  strengthening  the  hands 
of  the  party  which  was  opposed  to  the  old  independent  gov- 
ernment. 
Although  these  conditions  might  be  found  in  Boston,  the 


EARLY  LIFE  — LOSS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  CHARTER       5 

country  towns  were  less  influenced  by  increasing  wealth  and 
new  ideas.  In  them  the  old  simplicity  of  life  and  austerity  of 
thought  and  manners  still  remained,  and  the  old  spirit  and 
ideals  of  the  founders  of  the  Puritan  commonwealth  were  kept 
alive  by  the  almost  unchallenged  influence  of  the  clergy.  Thus 
a  conflict  was  inevitable,  and  the  field  of  the  struggle  was  the 
General  Court.  Although  there  were  no  legal  distinctions  in 
the  qualifications  for  membership  in  the  two  branches  that  to- 
gether formed  this  body,  yet  the  freemen  naturally  chose  as 
Assistants  the  more  experienced,  the  better  educated,  or  those 
best  fitted  to  act  in  an  administrative  capacity.  For  the  rep- 
resentatives they  selected  men  whom  they  knew,  inhabitants 
of  the  towns  they  represented,  who  were  acquainted  with  and 
reflected  the  opinions  of  their  constituents.  Thus  it  happened 
that  in  the  Court  of  Assistants  there  were  many  men  of  wealth 
and  position  amenable  to  new  ideas  and  influences,  while  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  the  country  party,  which  re- 
flected the  old  ideas,  was  most  numerous.  This  distinction 
between  the  houses  is  the  key  to  many  of  the  political  di- 
visions of  the  period,  —  to  the  hesitancy  that  was  displayed 
during  the  last  years  of  the  charter  government,  and  to  many 
of  the  conflicts  during  the  administration  of  Dudley. 

The  restoration  of  the  Stuarts  marks  a  change  in  the  method 
in  which  England  exercised  control  over  her  American  colonies. 
Before  the  great  civil  war,  both  James  I  and  Charles  I  had 
appointed  committees  of  the  Privy  Council  to  regulate  the 
colonial  trade.1  With  the  rise  and  supremacy  of  Parliament 
during  the  war  this  control  was  assumed  by  Parliament,  and 
a  commission  was  appointed  headed  by  Robert,  Earl  of  War- 
wick, as  governor-in-chief  of  all  the  colonies.  In  1655  a 

1  For  an  exhaustive  treatment  of  this  subject,  see  Andrews,  British  Com- 
mittees, Commissions,  and  Councils  of  Trade  and  Plantations,  1622-1675. 


6  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

larger  board  was  established,  consisting  of  councillors,  judges, 
officials,  and  merchants,  which  busied  itself  chiefly  with  the 
regulation  of  colonial  commerce.  With  the  restoration  in 
1660  the  crown  and  Privy  Council  once  more  assumed  control 
of  the  colonial  policy.  This  control  was  first  directed  by  two 
advisory  bodies,  —  one  a  committee  of  the  Privy  Council  for 
Foreign  Plantations,1  the  other  an  advisory  council  for  trade, 
composed  of  prominent  men  and  some  of  the  members  of  the 
Privy  Council.2  In  1674,  however,  this  system  of  dual  boards 
was  abandoned,  and  a  standing  committee  of  twenty-four 
members  of  the  Privy  Council  was  appointed,  which  was 
known  as  the  Lords  of  Trade.3  This  body  was  continued, 
with  various  changes  in  its  personnel,  until  1696,  when  Wil- 
liam III  organized  a  Board  of  Trade  consisting  of  the  great 
officers  of  state  and  eight  commissioners,  among  whom  were 
William  Blathwayt  and  John  Locke,  who  had  been  active  in 
colonial  affairs  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II ;  and  this  board  was, 
in  turn,  continued  by  Anne,  under  whom  it  became  an  active 
and  efficient  body.  It  was  with  the  Lords  of  Trade,  just 
established  at  his  entrance  into  public  life,  that  Dudley  had 
relations  for  nearly  forty  years,  —  a  board  on  which  sat  some 
of  the  ablest  men  in  England,  who  from  experience,  observa- 
tion, and  careful  study  had  developed  ideas  concerning  colonial 
control  which  they  tried  to  make  effective  in  New  England. 
It  is  not  surprising,  nor  is  it  to  Dudley's  discredit,  that  he  was 
influenced  by  these  men  and  their  ideas ;  nor  should  the  fact 
that  their  aims  differed  from  the  desires  of  many  persons  in 
Massachusetts  be  sufficient  to  condemn  them  and  cause 
Dudley  to  be  regarded  as  a  traitor. 

The  Stuarts  had  a  threefold  policy.     Their  first   object, 

1  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  iii.  32-34. 
1  Ibid.  30-32.  3  Ibid.  228-229. 


EARLY  LIFE  — LOSS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  CHARTER       7 

undisguised  mercantilism,  was  to  unite  England  and  her 
colonies  in  closer  commercial  relations,  —  to  incorporate  the 
trade  of  the  colonies  in  the  commerce  of  the  empire  and  utilize 
their  resources  to  increase  the  prosperity  of  the  mother  coun- 
try. The  colonial  navigation  laws,  in  which  this  policy  is 
embodied,  had  their  origin  in  the  commonwealth;  but  their 
provisions  were  reenacted  and  extended  in  a  series  of  five 
acts  passed  between  1660  and  1696. l  The  net  result  of  these 
acts  was  to  prohibit  the  direct  trade  of  the  colonies  with 
Europe,  but  at  the  same  time  to  admit  them  to  a  share  in  the 
commerce  of  Great  Britain.  After  the  freedom  which  they 
had  enjoyed,  these  restrictions  seemed  burdensome;  for  the 
colonists  were  by  no  means  ready  to  abandon  the  lucrative 
trade  that  had  grown  up  with  France,  Spain,  and  the  Canaries. 
A  second  object  of  the  policy  of  England  was  to  "regulate" 
the  colonial  governments,  or>  in  other  words,  to  make  their 
laws  and  procedure  like  those  of  England.  The  result  of  this 
regulation  would  have  been  to  make  the  colonies  more  de- 
pendent on  England  and  to  increase  the  influence  of  the  king ; 
but  at  the  same  time,  such  a  policy  would  have  put  an  end 
to  the  illegal  practices  which  had  grown  up  in  America.  The 
third  object  was  to  settle  the  religious  and  political  disputes 
that  were  rife  in  the  colonies,  to  protect  those  whom  religious 
opinions  had  debarred  from  political  rights,  and  to  put  an 
end  to  the  conflicting  claims  of  the  various  colonies,  and 
particularly  to  those  rights  which  Massachusetts  exercised 
over  Maine  and  New  Hampshire.  To  accomplish  these 
aims,  and  also  to  utilize  the  military  resources  of  the  colonies, 
the  Lords  of  Trade,  after  repeated  attempts  to  control  the 

1  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  v.  246-250,  394~395>  449~452,  792-793,  vii.  103-107 ; 
Channing,  "The  Navigation  Laws,"  American  Antiquarian  Society,  Proceed- 
ings, New  Series,  vi.  160-179. 


8  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

various  independent  jurisdictions,  sought  to  make  their  will 
effective  by  a  union  of  all  the  New  England  colonies  and  a 
centralization  of  the  authority  of  England.  This  later  object, 
it  will  be  seen,  was  realized  only  for  a  short  time  under  the 
administration  of  Andros;  but  the  difficulties  which  Eng- 
land experienced  in  her  attempts  to  assert  her  political,  com- 
mercial, and  military  control  led  her  administrators  again 
and  again  to  turn  their  thoughts  to  this  method.  Dudley 
himself  had  come  to  see  the  need  of  colonial  cooperation  even 
before  he  was  brought  into  contact  with  the  Lords  of  Trade ; l 
and,  as  his  ideas  developed  with  wider  experience,  he  became 
one  of  the  strongest  advocates  of  this  feature  of  the  English 
policy. 

Even  before  Dudley  began  his  public  life,  the  king  had 
attempted  to  carry  out  his  plans.  In  1664  a  commission  was 
sent  to  Massachusetts  to  hear  complaints  and  to  enforce  the 
judgments  of  the  crown ;  but  it  accomplished  nothing  save 
to  stir  up  bitter  feeling.  Agents  were  sent  to  England  by 
Massachusetts,  but  they  neither  won  the  contentions  of  the 
colony  nor  surrendered  its  privileges.  An  open  conflict 
seemed  imminent  when  England  became  involved  in  a  series 
of  wars,  and  the  struggle  was  postponed  for  a  decade.  In 
1676  the  king  was  again  ready  to  enforce  his  policy,  and  sent 
a  messenger  to  Massachusetts,  ostensibly  to  carry  a  letter 
directing  the  government  to  send  agents  to  England  to  explain 
its  conduct  in  Maine  and  New  Hampshire,  but  also  to  report 
upon  the  religious,  commercial,  and  military  conditions  of 
the  colony  and  the  temper  of  the  people.  The  messenger 
chosen  was  Edward  Randolph,  a  connection  of  the  Mason 
family,  the  proprietors  of  New  Hampshire,  a  man  who  had 

1  Dudley  to  Secretary  Allen  of  Connecticut,  February  6,  1681,  Toppan, 
Edward  Randolph,  i.  139,  note. 


EARLY  LIFE  — LOSS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  CHARTER      g 

been  employed  by  the  king  on  confidential  affairs,  and  a 
personal  friend  and  correspondent  of  William  Blathwayt, 
clerk  of  the  Privy  Council.1  From  this  time  he  becomes  one 
of  the  central  figures  of  New  England,  the  agent  of  the  crown, 
the  enemy  of  Massachusetts,  and  the  ally  of  Dudley.  It  is 
to  be  noted,  moreover,  that  the  first  appearance  of  Randolph 
coincides  with  the  entrance  of  Dudley  into  the  Court  of  Assist- 
ants, a  position  notably  congenial  to  the  latter  and  one  well 
suited  to  his  abilities,  but  also  one  where  he  would  be  under 
the  influence  of  the  party  least  dominated  by  the  aims  of  the 
early  settlers  and  most  ready  to  guard  the  material  interests 
of  the  colony. 

Randolph's  reception  by  the  governor  and  magistrates  was 
not  of  such  a  nature  as  to  lead  him  to  regard  the  loyalty  of  the 
colony  very  favorably,2  and  he  allowed  his  temper  to  color 
some  of  his  observations.  In  general,  however,  he  followed 
his  instructions  faithfully,3  and,  allowing  for  exaggerations 
in  his  estimates  of  population  and  resources,  he  makes  few 
actually  false  statements ;  yet  his  whole  report  put  the  colony 
in  an  unfavorable  light  and  greatly  overestimated  the  inde- 
pendence of  Massachusetts.  He  certainly  gave  a  false  im- 
pression when  he  wrote,  "No  law  is  enforced  or  esteemed 
there  but  such  as  made  by  the  General  Court,"  and  again, 
"There  is  no  notice  taken  of  the  acts  of  navigation  or  any 
other  of  the  acts  of  trade;"  but  it  must  be  admitted  that  an 
agent  of  the  admiralty  might  justly  believe  that  such  was  the 

1  Toppan's  Edward  Randolph,  published  by  the  Prince  Society,  contains  a 
most  valuable  memoir  of  Randolph  and  a  collection  of  the  important  documents 
connected  with  this  period.  Two  additional  volumes  of  papers  have  been  pub- 
lished by  the  same  society,  edited  by  Rev.  A.  T.  S.  Goodrick,  who  in  his  in- 
troduction throws  new  light  upon  Randolph's  personal  character.  See  also 
Charming,  History  of  the  United  States,  ii.  150-160. 

*Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  ii.  216.  *  Ibid.  196. 


10  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

case.  Randolph  misjudged  as  well  the  relative  strength  of  the 
parties,  and  greatly  overestimated  the  influence  of  the  moder- 
ate element  which  he  found  represented  in  the  Court  of  Assist- 
ants. He  was  shrewd  enough,  however,  in  his  judgment  of 
individuals,  and  correctly  reported  that  the  "most  popular  and 
well  principled  men  ...  in  the  magistracy"  were  Denison, 
Bradstreet,  and  Dudley ; 1  but  he  did  not  realize  that  the 
temper  of  the  representatives  and  the  country  people  was  as 
unyielding  as  ever.  In  his  association  with  the  malcontents 
and  men  of  moderate  principles  he  lost  sight  of  the  real  temper 
of  the  people. 

The  open  and  avowed  purpose  of  Randolph's  coming  was  to 
call  upon  Massachusetts  to  defend  her  conduct  in  Maine  and 
New  Hampshire.2  These  territories  had  been  given  by  a 
series  of  vaguely  defined  grants  to  Sir  Ferdinando  Gorges  and 
to  Captain  John  Mason,  neither  of  whom  had  been  successful 
in  his  attempts  to  colonize  the  region.  The  growth  of  Massa- 
chusetts and  the  dispersion  of  her  settlers  peopled  these  terri- 
tories with  colonists  more  in  harmony  with  the  Puritan  gov- 
ernment of  Massachusetts  than  with  the  royalist  proprietors 
in  England;  and  as  a  result  of  settlement,  aggression,  and 
negotiation  these  regions  were  included  in  the  jurisdiction  of 
Massachusetts.  At  the  Restoration  the  heirs  of  both  Gorges 
and  Mason  appealed  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  and  one  of  the 
unsuccessful  objects  of  the  commission  of  1664  had  been  to 
settle  this  question.  As  a  pretext  to  bring  the  whole  conduct 

1  Randolph  to  Coventry,  June  17,  1676,  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  ii.  203- 
209;  Randolph  to  the  king,  September  20,  1676,  ibid.  216-225;  Randolph's 
report  to  the  committee,  October  12,  1676,  ibid.  225-259;  the  king  to  "the 
government  of  Boston,"  March  10,  1675-1676,  ibid.  192-194. 

2  A.  S.  Batchellor,  in  his  edition  of  the  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  i.  pp.  xxix 
et  seq.,  gives  a  brief  discussion  of  this  subject,  together  with  extracts  from  the 
Massachusetts  records. 


EARLY  LIFE  — LOSS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  CHARTER    n 

of  Massachusetts  under  review,  the  Committee  took  up  these 
complaints  and  directed  that  agents  from  the  colony  should 
appear  before  it.  The  General  Court  complied,  and  William 
Stoughton  and  Peter  Bulkley  were  sent  with  instructions  which 
allowed  them  to  defend  the  course  of  Massachusetts  in  New 
Hampshire  and  Maine,  but  directed  them  to  plead  absence  of 
instructions  to  all  other  complaints.1 

Before  the  agents  reached  England,  Randolph  arrived 
there  and  stirred  up  as  much  hostility  as  possible  against 
them.  He  repeated  the  general  charges  of  disobedience,  and 
urged  the  very  efficient  method  which  was  afterwards  adopted, 
that  of  questioning  the  validity  of  colonial  land  titles.2  The 
Lords  of  Trade  reported  that  the  only  way  to  bring  the  colony 
to  terms  was  for  the  king  to  appoint  a  royal  governor  and 
thus  make  void  the  colonial  charters ; 3  and  the  law  officers  of 
the  crown,  whose  opinion  was  received  May  16, 1678,  held  that, 
although  the  charter  was  still  good,  the  misdemeanors  of  the 
colonists  were  sufficient  to  make  it  void. 4  Not  only,  therefore, 
did  the  agents  see  the  possibility  that  a  governor  might  be 
sent,  but  the  colonial  merchants  resident  in  England  expected 
the  appointment  of  one.5  By  pleading  the  want  of  instructions, 
however,  the  agents  contrived  to  ward  off  this  catastrophe. 

Shortly  after  the  agents  arrived  in  England,  the  judges  to 
whom  the  conflicting  claims  to  Maine  and  New  Hampshire 

1  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  v.  113-116. 

2  Representations  of  Randolph,  May  6,  1677,  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  ii. 
265-268. 

8  Ibid.  297. 

4  Ibid.  iii.  4.  A  year  before  the  chief  justices  Raynsford  and  North,  in  dis- 
cussing the  claims  of  Massachusetts  to  Maine  and  New  Hampshire  (see  note 
i,  below),  reported  that  the  Massachusetts  charter  made  "the  Adventurers  a 
corporation  upon  the  place." 

6  Blinman  to  Increase  Mather,  August  9,  1678,  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  Collections,  4th  Series,  viii.  335. 


12  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

were  referred  decided  that  neither  Mason  nor  Massachusetts 
had  any  good  claim  to  the  government  of  New  Hampshire, 
a  decision  which  left  the  settlers  directly  dependent  upon  the 
crown.  The  title  to  Maine,  was,  however,  they  decided, 
vested  on  the  heirs  of  Gorges.1  It  was  now  rumored  that  the 
king  was  in  negotiation  with  these  heirs  in  an  attempt  to  buy 
Maine  with  the  intention  of  uniting  it  with  New  Hampshire, 
and  forming  a  single  province  for  his  favorite  Monmouth. 
In  order  to  forestall  such  a  calamity,  the  agents  made  a  suc- 
cessful effort  and  purchased  Maine  for  £1250,  a  proceeding 
which  the  king  took  "very  ill,"2  from  this  time  on  showing 
active  personal  hostility  toward  the  colony.  To  counteract 
this  state  of  things,  the  agents  received  new  instructions  from 
home.  They  were  directed  to  enlarge  upon  the  services  of 
the  colony  in  gaining  New  England  from  the  French  and 
the  Dutch,  and  upon  the  lucrative  trade  of  that  region; 
but  their  bargain  for  Maine  was  approved,  and  the  purchase 
money  was  voted.  They  were  to  report  that  the  colony  prom- 
ised to  amend  its  conduct  in  certain  particulars;  but  the 
legality  of  the  navigation  laws  was  questioned  on  the  ground 
that  "The  subjects  of  his  Majue8  here  not  being  represented 
in  Parliament,  so  wee  have  not  looked  to  ourselues  to  be 
impeded  in  our  trade  by  them."  They  were  not  to  allow, 
through  any  concession  of  theirs,  that  "any  least  stone  should 
be  put  out  of  the  wall  "  of  the  charter ;  but  they  were  directed 
to  report  that  the  oath  of  allegiance  had  been  taken  by  the 
magistrates,  and  that  the  arms  of  the  king  were  to  be  "carved 
by  an  able  artist,  &  erected  hi  the  court  house."3  These 

1  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  America  and  West  Indies,  1677-1680,  No.  342. 
1  Board  of  Trade,  Colonial  Entry  Book  (Ms.),  106,  p.  8. 
*  For  the  address  to  the  king,  the  declaration  of  the  government,  and  the 
instructions  to  the  agents,  see  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  v.  197-203. 


EARLY  LIFE  — LOSS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  CHARTER    13 

slight  concessions  and  ingenious  instructions  rendering  the 
longer  stay  of  the  agents  useless,  they  petitioned  to  return; 
and  the  Committee,  recognizing  the  futility  of  continuing 
negotiations,  allowed  them  to  go,  but  wrote  a  letter  demand- 
ing new  agents  with  more  satisfactory  instructions.1  The 
men  chosen  for  this  new  mission  were  Joseph  Dudley  and 
John  Richards.2 

The  acceptance  of  this  agency  was  the  turning-point  in 
Dudley's  career.  Hitherto  he  had  been  respected  and  honored 
in  New  England ;  he  had  filled  many  offices  of  trust,  and  his 
skill,  honesty,  and  ability  had  never  been  questioned.  It  is 
true  that  he  did  not  always  receive  the  largest  number  of  votes 
in  the  choice  of  Assistants,  but  his  name  stood  well  up  on  the 
list ;  and  he  represented  the  moderate  party  in  Boston, 
rather  than  the  extreme  unyielding  party  of  the  country  towns. 
Now  he  was  called  to  undertake  a  difficult  and  almost  hopeless 
mission.  The  career  of  a  colonial  agent  was  not  such  as  to 
attract  ambitious  men,  nor  was  the  reward  received  sufficient 
to  compensate  for  the  loss  of  prestige.  Cotton  Mather,  writ- 
ing in  1702,  stated  the  case  correctly  when  he  said,  "Such  has 
been  the  jealous  disposition  of  our  New-Englanders  about 
their  dearly  bought  privileges,  and  such  also  has  been  the 
various  understanding  of  the  people  about  the  extent  of  those 
privileges,  that  of  all  the  agents,  which  they  have  sent  over 
unto  the  Court  of  England,  for  now  forty  years  together,  I 
know  not  any  one,  who  did  not  at  his  return,  meet  with  some 
very  f reward  entertainment  among  his  country-men."3  In 
the  present  instance  it  was  almost  a  forlorn  hope  which  Dudley 
was  called  upon  to  lead.  Randolph's  reports  had  poisoned 
the  minds  of  the  Lords  of  Trade,  the  competition  of  the  colony 

1  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iii.  44. 

1  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  v.  346.        J  Mather,  Magnolia,  i.  270. 


14  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

with  the  London  merchants  had  alienated  some  natural 
political  allies,1  the  purchase  of  Maine  had  angered  the  king, 
and  the  long-continued  resistance  of  Massachusetts  had  made 
further  defence  difficult. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  agents  went  well  recom- 
mended, a  hostile  reception  was  prepared  for  them.  Governor 
Hinckley  of  Plymouth  commended  Dudley  to  Blathwayt, 
secretary  of  the  Lords  of  Trade,2  thus  laying  the  foundation 
of  an  alliance  which  proved  an  object  of  suspicion  to  the 
colonists,  but  an  advantage  to  Dudley.  Randolph,  however, 
did  all  that  he  could  to  render  the  mission  fruitless.  To  Sir 
Leoline  Jenkins,  secretary  of  state,  he  wrote,  "Nothing  these 
Agents  promise  may  be  depended  upon"  ; 3  and  to  the  Bishop 
of  London,  ''Major  Dudley  is  a  great  opposer  of  the  faction 
heere  .  .  .  who,  if  he  finds  things  resolutely  manniged.  will 
cringe  and  bow  to  anything ;  he  hath  his  fortune  to  make  in 
the  world,  and  if  his  Majesty,  upon  alteration  of  the  gov- 
ernment, make  him  captain  of  the  castle  of  Boston  and 
the  forts  in  the  colloney,  his  Majesty  will  game  a  popular 
man  and  obleidge  the  better  party.  ...  As  for  Capt. 
Richards,  he  is  one  of  the  faction,  a  man  of  meane  extrac- 
tion, ...  he  ought  to  be  kept  very  safe  till  all  things 
tending  to  the  quiett  and  regulation  of  this  government  be 
perfectly  settled."4 

The  "faction"  to  which  Randolph  referred  was  the  party 
in  the  General  Court  bent  upon  resistance,  composed  largely 
of  representatives  from  the  country  towns,  but  led  by  men 
like  Danforth,  the  deputy-governor,  Elisha  Cooke,  and  Elisha 

1  Andrews,  Colonial  Self -Government,  259-260 ;  Calendar  of  State  Papers, 
America  and  West  Indies,  1675-1676,  No.  881. 

*  Hinckley  to  Blathwayt,  May  26,  1682,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  4th  Series,  v.  65. 

JToppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iii.  142-144.  4  Ibid.  145-149. 


EARLY  LIFE  — LOSS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  CHARTER    15 

Hutchinson.  For  this  faction  Randolph  had  the  greatest  con- 
tempt, and  believed  it  to  be  the  source  of  all  the  opposition  to 
his  plans.  His  estimate  of  Dudley,  though  not  complimen- 
tary, was  in  the  main  justified  by  his  subsequent  relations 
with  him.  Dudley  was  an  opposer  of  the  faction,  in  that  he 
belonged  to  the  moderate  party ;  but  his  nature  was  so  pliant 
that  he  would  often  seem  to  surrender  the  contention  tempo- 
rarily in  order  to  gain  his  purpose  ultimately.  The  charge 
that  he  had  his  fortune  to  make  may  be  taken  as  referring  to 
his  well-known  ambition ;  but  whether  at  this  date  he  had  made 
any  positive  agreement  with  Randolph  is  open  to  doubt.  It 
is  true  that  a  passage  in  one  of  Randolph's  letters  to  the  Lords 
of  Trade,  in  which  he  says  that  Dudley  "will  give  a  sight"  of 
his  instructions,1  may  seem  to  imply  some  compact ;  yet  there 
is  no  other  evidence,  and  such  an  act  on  Dudley's  part  would 
have  been  quite  in  accord  with  his  conception  of  his  functions, 
—  namely,  to  put  an  end  to  the  misunderstandings  between 
England  and  Massachusetts. 

At  first  the  General  Court  resolved  to  try  the  use  of  money, 
and  directed  the  agents  to  tender  Lord  Hyde  two  thousand 
guineas  for  the  king's  private  use ;  but  the  attempt  recoiled 
upon  them,  and  Dudley  wrote  to  Bradstreet,  "Truly,  sir,  if 
you  was  here  to  see  how  we  are  ridiculed  by  our  best  friends 
at  court  ...  it  would  grieve  you." 2  "Sir,  it  is  a  hard  service 
we  are  engaged  in,"  wrote  Richards  to  Increase  Mather.3 
The  Lords  of  Trade  were  openly  hostile;  they  ordered  the 
agents  to  produce  a  commission  empowering  them  to  consent 
to  any  alteration  of  the  charter,  and  advised  the  king  to  pro- 

1  Ibid.  IT 2. 

1  February,  1682,  quoted  in  Hutchison's  History  of  Massachusetts,  i.  303, 
note. 

3  August  21,  1682,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  4th  Series, 
viii.  494. 


1 6  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

ceed  by  a  writ  of  quo  warranto.1  "The  truth  is,"  wrote 
Richards,  September  25,  1682,  "our  case  is  come  to  a  Crisis. 
They  are  resolved  here  of  their  way,  and  put  us  to  a  hard 
choice ;  either  to  empower  }>sons  here  fully  instructed  &  com- 
missionated,  to  accept  of  such  Regulations  of  our  Government 
as  shall  be  propounded,  &c.,  or  else  a  Quo  Warranto  will  within 
4  monethes  proceed  against  our  Charter." 2  Both  Dudley  and 
Richards  saw  that  their  mission  was  doomed  to  failure,  and 
were  using  all  their  efforts  to  bring  about  their  recall.  To  cap 
the  climax,  however,  Randolph  was  ordered  to  return  to  Eng- 
land "to  attend  upon  the  further  progress  of  the  business  of 
New  England."3 

The  feeling  in  the  colony  was  now  one  of  despondency. 
Even  the  "faction"  expected  that  very  little  could  be  done, 
for  Nowell,  one  of  its  leaders,  wrote  to  Richards,  "I  am 
heartily  sorry  for  both  of  you  that  your  part  is  like  to  be  so 
hard :  it  will  be  hard  to  do  that  wch  shall  be  pleasing  either  in 
Old  Engld  or  in  New"  ;4  and  again,  "I  have  little  expectation 
that  all  we  can  or  shall  do  will  put  a  stop  to  the  Quo  Warranto ; 
for  if  we  doe  not  give  you  power,  it  will  go  on,  if  we  do  give 
you  the  power  required,  &  you  do  not  make  use  of  it  to  our 
p'judice,  the  Quo  Warranto  will  still  go  on ;  but  if  you  do  make 
use  of  the  power  to  answer  demands,  we  do  then  pull  downe 
the  house  ourselues,  which  is  worse  than  to  be  passive  only." 5 
Nevertheless,  new  instructions  were  sent  which  allowed  the 
agents  to  consent  to  such  alterations  "as  may  consist  w01 
the  majne  ends  of  our  predecessors  in  their  removall  hither 
our  charter,  and  his  majVjes  government  here  setled  accord- 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Colonial  Entry  Book  (Ms.),  107,  p.  56. 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  4th  Series,  viii.  496. 

3  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iii,  207. 

4  November  9,  1682,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  5th  Series, 
i.  431.  *  March  28,  1683,  ibid.  434. 


EARLY  LIFE  — LOSS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  CHARTER    17 

ing  therevnto,"  but  not  to  consent  to  any  infringement  of  the 
religious  liberties  or  present  constitution  of  the  General  Court. 
As  a  last  resort  they  were  allowed  to  surrender  Maine,  but 
were  cautioned  to  "be  slow  in  tendring  the  Prouince  of 
Majne." 1  As  might  have  been  expected,  these  instructions 
were  inadequate,  and  the  Committee,  "finding  the  Agents  not 
duly  impowred  by  their  Commission  to  consent  to  such  regu- 
lation of  their  Government  as  shall  bee  thought  fit  according 
to  His  Maty  8  directions,  Doe  agree  to  Report  that  Mr  At- 
torney bee  Ordered  to  bring  a  Quo  Warranto  against  the 
Privileges  of  their  Charter."2  This  marked  the  end  of  the 
agents'  usefulness  in  England,  and  when  they  petitioned  to 
be  allowed  to  return,  their  request  was  granted. 

This  agency  was,  indeed,  the  crucial  point  of  Dudley's 
career.  When  he  got  home  he  found  himself  an  object  of  sus- 
picion and  hatred.  In  a  Boston  town-meeting,  the  people, 
under  the  lead  of  Mather  and  Nowell,  declared  that  he  and  his 
friends  Bradstreet,  Stoughton,  and  Bulkley  were  enemies  to 
the  country,  and  resolved  to  change  the  magistrates  at  the 
next  election.3  The  truth  is,  however,  that  no  action  of  the 
agents  could  have  prevented  the  issuance  of  the  quo  warranto. 
Delay,  evasion,  and  defiance  had  exhausted  the  colony's  means 
of  defence  and  the  Committee's  patience.  The  futility  of  the 

1  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  v.  386-392. 

8  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iii.  234. 

1  In  January  a  town  meeting  was  held  to  choose  jurymen,  and  the  king's 
declaration  was  there  published.  Then  "Nowell  stood  up  and  declared  that 
those  which  were  free  to  deliver  up  their  charter  and  Right  to  the  Country 
should  hold  up  their  hands.  .  .  .  And  when  the  freemen  were  to  vote  by 
holding  up  their  hands  not  one  man  held  up  his  hand,  wch  caused  one  of  the 
Freemen  to  hold  up  both  hands  and  with  Long  acclamations  cryed  out,  the 
Lord  be  praysed.  .  .  .  Mather  stands  up  and  exhorts  the  people  telling  them 
how  the  forefathers  did  purchase  it,  and  would  they  deliver  it  up  even  as  Ahab 
required  Naboth's  vinyard.  .  .  .  They  might  see  Examples  enough  before  their 
Eyes  meaning  the  City  of  London  and  their  Neighbouring  Country  of  Pascata- 


1 8  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

mission  was  clear  to  Dudley  and  his  colleague,  and  was  recog- 
nized by  many  of  the  leaders  at  home ;  but  on  their  return 
Richards,  forgetting  his  experience  in  England  and  his  own 
discouraging  reports,  sided  with  the  faction  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  and  urged  further  resistance  to  the  commands 
of  the  king.  Dudley  was  more  consistent;  he  better  under- 
stood the  temper  of  the  Committee,  and  boldly  advised  the 
colony  by  speedy  submission,  to  make  the  best  terms  possible.1 
As  a  result,  Richards  was  regarded  as  a  patriotic  man,  while 
the  hatred  of  the  people  was  concentrated  on  Dudley  and  he 
was  dropped  from  the  Court  of  Assistants. 

Dudley's  hands,  however,  were  not  absolutely  clean.  Al- 
though there  is  not  evidence  enough  to  convict  him  of  the 
avowed  intention  to  betray  the  charter,  yet  it  is  known  that  he 
and  Randolph  discussed  the  probable  form  of  government 
after  the  charter  should  be  overthrown.2  This  conversation, 
to  be  sure,  took  place  after  the  issuance  of  the  quo  warranto; 
yet  it  showed  a  readiness  on  Dudley's  part  to  accept  a  result 


qua.  ...  It  is  resolved  that  upon  the  7  day  of  May  next  being  the  day 
of  election,  there  bee  a  New  Go*  and  new  Magistrates  declaring  Gov1  Brad- 
street,  Mr  Stoughton,  Mr  Dudley,  Mr  Bulkley  and  one  more  wc  are  Enemies 
to  the  Countrey.  It  is  resolved  their  Ellections  to  be  such  as  to  haue  Govnr 
and  Magistrates  to  be  Unanimously  and  its  thought  they  designe  to  opose 
any  power  from  the  King."  —  Abstract  of  a  letter  from  Boston,  March  14, 
1684,  given  by  Randolph  to  the  Lords  of  Trade :  Board  of  Trade,  Papers, 
New  England  (Ms.),  S3,  No.  51. 

^oppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iii.  273.  See  also  a  letter  (signed  by  Brad- 
street,  Bulkley,  Saltonstall,  Russell,  Stoughton,  Dudley,  Browne,  and  Gidney, 
March  23,  1684)  to  Sir  Leoline  Jenkins,  stating  that  the  majority  of  the  magis- 
trates "declared  for  submission,  and  would  have  despatched  our  agents  em- 
powered to  make  that  submission.  But  we  cannot  obtain  the  assent  of  the 
deputies."  —  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  America  and  West  Indies,  1681-1685, 
No.  1603. 

2  Randolph  to  Southwell,  August  19,  1683 :  "I  have  spent  some  tyme  with 
Mr.  Dudley  one  of  their  present  Agents  Endeavouring  to  accomodate  things 
for  their  future  settlment.  .  .  ." — Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iii.  262. 


EARLY  LIFE  — LOSS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  CHARTER    19 

hateful  to  those  who  had  intrusted  him  with  their  interests. 
From  this  time  on,  at  any  rate,  Dudley  and  Randolph  worked 
in  harmony,  Randolph  pushing  on  the  suit  in  England,  Dudley 
advising  submission  at  home,  and  at  the  same  time  seeking 
to  mitigate  the  severity  of  the  punishment  which  he  felt  sure 
would  be  inflicted  upon  the  colony.  In  a  long  letter  to  Sir 
Leoline  Jenkins,  he  says  that  he  has  endeavored  "to  assure  this 
people  that  his  Majestyes  Just  satisfaction  &  this  peoples 
good  were  the  same  &  not  a  different  interest,"  and  that  as  a 
result  he  has  lost  his  office  and  is  regarded  as  an  enemy  to  the 
country.  This  attitude  he  attributes  not  to  the  body  of  the 
people,  but  to  certain  persons  who  have  influenced  them,  and 
begs  that  "no  severities  may  be  used  towards  them  as  will 
spoyle  the  growth  of  these  plantations  &  thereby  greatly 
disadvantage  his  Majestyes  revenues  &  his  Majestyes  other 
plantations  in  the  West  Indies  that  have  great  dependence 
upon  this  place,  &  his  Majestyes  commands  for  their  future 
settlement  may  be  accompanied  &  Introduced  with  his  Gra- 
tious  pardon,  assurance  of  his  peoples  property es  &  Indulgence 
in  Matters  of  religion,  which  will  greatly  oblidge  this  people 
in  their  obedience  &  advance  the  good  opinion  &  confidence  of 
his  Majestyes  undeserved  Grace  &  favor  for  them."  *  Whether 
this  letter  expressed  Dudley's  sincere  desire,  or  was  only  a 
shrewd  bid  for  future  favors  from  England,  it  is  hard  to  de- 
termine ;  yet  it  is  typical  of  his  later  policy,  which  was  obedi- 
ence and  close  dependence  upon  England,  coupled  with  a 
genuine  desire  to  protect  and  improve  the  condition  of  the 
colony.  Probably  at  this  date,  as  in  his  later  career,  Dudley 
felt  himself  to  be  the  man  to  bring  about  this  harmony  and 

1  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  America  and  West  Indies,  1681-1685,  No.  1670. 
The  original  from  which  this  quotation  is  made  is  in  the  Board  of  Trade's 
Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  53,  No.  92. 


20  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

prosperity,  and  in  order  to  gain  his  ends  he  did  not  hesitate  to 
use  the  influence  of  a  man  so  hated  as  Randolph.  In  this  aim, 
he  was  successful;  for  Randolph  wrote, "  I  am  extreamely  solici- 
tous that  Mr.  Dudley  might  have  the  sole  Gou*  of  N.  Engd." l 
The  proceedings  against  the  colony  in  the  court  of  King's 
Bench  were,  by  advice  of  Attorney-General  Sawyer,  trans- 
ferred to  Chancery,  where  upon  a  writ  of  scire  facias,  to  which 
the  colonists. did  not  plead,  the  charter  was  declared  vacated, 
October  23,  i684.2  To  the  disappointment  of  Randolph, 

1  Randolph  to  Samuel  Shrimpton,  July  26,  1684,  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  Collections,  4th  Series,  viii.  526. 

*The  "Exemplification  of  the  Judgment  vacating  the  Charter"  is  printed 
in  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society's  Collections,  4th  Series,  ii.  246.  At  a 
later  date  Randolph  wrote,  "By  the  assistance  of  Mr  Brent  of  the  Temple, 
then:  solicitor,  they  obtained  a  report  from  Sir  Thomas  Powys  ...  in  their 
favour,  that  then-  former  charter  was  illegally  vacated"  (Randolph  to  the  Lords 
Committee,  May  29,  1689,  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  iii.  578).  Pro- 
fessor Joel  Parker,  in  his  lecture  on  "The  Charter  and  Religious  Legisla- 
tion in  Massachusetts"  (Lowell  Institute  Lectures  on  the  Early  History  of  Massa- 
chusetts, 400),  says,  "The  assumption  to  enter  a  decree,  that  a  charter  .  .  . 
which  had  existed  more  than  half  a  century,  should  'be  vacated,  cancelled,  and 
annihilated,'  on  account  of  usurpations,  which,  in  case  of  ordinary  corporations, 
may  be  a  subject  for  proceedings  by  writ  of  quo  warranto  in  the  King's  Bench, 
and  especially  to  do  this  upon  a  writ  issued  to  the  sheriff  of  Middlesex,  in  Eng- 
land, under  such  circumstances  that  there  could  be  neither  service  nor  notice, 
—  would  be  of  itself  a  usurpation."  Charles  Deane,  in  Winsor's  Memorial 
History  of  Boston,  i.  378,  quoting  the  above,  comes  to  a  like  conclusion.  On 
the  other  hand,  Blackstone  (Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England,  book  iii. 
260)  says,  "Where  the  patentee  hath  done  an  act  that  amounts  to  a  forfeiture 
of  the  grant  the  remedy  to  repeal  the  patent  is  by  a  writ  of  scire  facias  in  Chan- 
cery"; and  Bouvier  (Law  Dictionary,  ii.  960),  citing  the  same,  declares  that 
the  crown  may  by  its  own  prerogative  repeal  by  scire  facias  its  own  grant." 
Brooks  Adams  (Emancipation  of  Massachusetts,  213-215),  citing  a  letter  from 
Robert  Humphreys,  counsel  for  the  colonists,  does  not  question  the  legality  of 
the  proceedings ;  and  Humphreys  himself  apparently  acquiesced  when  his  plea 
"of  the  impossibility  of  hauing  a  return  from  you  in  the  time  alloted"  was 
overruled  by  the  lord  keeper.  Whether  the  charter  was  justly  vacated  or  not 
is  not  the  question ;  the  method  taken  was  a  proper  one  to  use  in  vacating  a 
charter,  and  the  decree  in  Chancery  stood  and  was  legally  binding  until 
reversed  by  some  higher  authority. 


EARLY  LIFE  — LOSS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  CHARTER     21 

however,  Colonel  Kirke  was  appointed  governor,  a  choice 
which  Randolph  vehemently  opposed.  He  wrote  to  Sir 
Robert  Southwell  and  to  the  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  urging  the 
unfitness  of  a  military  man,  and  of  Kirke  in  particular,  and 
advising  that  a  native  of  the  country  be  appointed.  Randolph 
at  last  succeeded  in  bringing  the  English  authorities  to  his 
point  of  view,  and  led  them  to  adopt  a  plan  which  he  had  in 
mind  since  1681,  when  he  had  sent  to  Jenkins  proposals  for  the 
settlement  of  New  England,  his  plan  being  to  proceed  against 
the  Company  by  a  writ  of  quo  warranto,  and  then  to  have  the 
king  issue  a  commission  for  a  temporary  government,  accom- 
panied by  a  declaration  of  free  pardon,  security  of  property, 
and  freedom  of  religion.1  Other  work  was  found  for  Kirke  to 
do ;  and  Randolph,  now  that  the  point  was  gained,  was  jubi- 
lant and  took  all  the  glory  to  himself.  To  Sir  Robert  South- 
well he  wrote,  "I  have  gainol  ye  point  &  am  carriing  over  with 
me  a  Commission  for  a  Temporary  Gomt :  I  hope  it  will 
succeed  &  the  rather  because  they  have  been  putt  in  a  terrible 
fright  with  the  apprehentions  of  being  committed  to  ye  Guar- 
dianship of  Cott  Kerk." 2  The  temporary  government  gave 
Randolph  what  he  hoped  would  prove  to  be  a  lucrative  post, 
and  made  Joseph  Dudley  president  of  the  Council  and  chief 
executive  not  only  of  Massachusetts,  but  of  a  large  part  of  New 
England  as  well. 

1  Goodrick,  Edward  Randolph,  89. 

z  August  29,  1685,  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iv.  40. 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  TEMPORARY   POLICY   OF  THE  RESTORATION 

JOSEPH  DUDLEY,  PRESIDENT  OP  THE  MASSACHUSETTS 
COUNCIL 

May  to  December,  1686 

THE  revocation  of  the  Massachusetts  charter  was  but  the 
first  step  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  Stuart  policy  towards 
New  England.  It  was  not  an  act  of  tyranny  prompted  by 
spite  and  malice,  but  a  part  of  a  well-defined  scheme  to  mini- 
mize the  particularistic  tendencies  of  the  colonies  and  to  in- 
crease their  dependence  on  England.  To  direct  intercolonial 
affairs,  to  enforce  the  laws  of  England  and  carry  out  her  com- 
mercial policy,  to  establish  the  national  church  while  recog- 
nizing the  peculiarities  of  colonial  dissent,  —  in  short,  to  treat 
the  colonies  as  if  they  were  an  integral  part  of  the  British 
realm,  these  were  the  aims  of  the  Stuart  policy.  Men  of 
broad  experience  and  communities  of  wide  interests  might  see 
little  that  was  hurtful  in  such  designs ;  but  the  average  man 
whose  outlook  was  confined  to  New  England  regarded  them 
as  acts  of  tyranny.  Here  and  there,  it  is  true,  men  of  larger 
experience,  whose  views  extended  beyond  New  England,  — 
men  like  Dudley  and  Stoughton,  —  might  welcome  the 
change ;  but  in  general  the  people,  under  the  lead  of  men  like 
Nowell  and  Danforth,  could  see  only  the  loss  of  the  ideals  of 
the  former  generation.  And  the  present  generation  differed 
from  the  founders  of  Massachusetts.  When  the  charter  was 


PRESIDENT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  23 

threatened,  in  1635,  preparations  were  made  for  resistance; 
the  ports  were  fortified,  and  men  were  willing  to  stake  their  all 
in  the  struggle.  In  1685  there  was  no  thought  of  open  resis- 
tance ;  sullen  acquiescence  and  apathy  were  the  most  that  was 
displayed. 

The  revocation  of  the  charter  was,  moreover,  the  easiest 
part  of  the  policy  of  the  Stuarts ;  it  had  been  accomplished  in 
England  by  legal  process,  and  it  had  not  been  contested  by 
the  colonists.  The  remainder  of  the  policy  must  be  carried 
out  in  New  England  by  officials  appointed  by  the  crown. 
Randolph's  successful  work  was  done.  He  had  succeeded  in 
overthrowing  the  charter  and  clearing  the  ground  for  the 
wider  designs  of  the  king.  That  he  had  done  this  for  selfish 
reasons,  by  means  of  exaggeration  and  misrepresentations, 
does  not  detract  from  the  effectiveness  of  his  work ;  nor  should 
the  fact  be  forgotten  that,  largely  because  of  his  representa- 
tions, the  government  was  not  intrusted  to  an  Englishman 
like  Kirke,  but  to  a  native  of  Massachusetts  who  thoroughly 
understood  her  history  and  peculiarities. 

It  was  fortunate  for  New  England  that  Dudley  had  made 
his  choice  of  parties  and  had  seen  no  disgrace  in  trying  to 
serve  both  the  king  and  Massachusetts.  Had  he  inherited  his 
father's  stern  and  unbending  nature,  he  might  have  become 
one  of  the  leaders  of  the  "faction,"  and  under  his  direction  a 
more  determined  resistance  might  have  provoked  England  to 
take  even  stronger  measures.  As  it  was,  both  England  and 
Massachusetts  profited  by  his  abilities.  He  so  utilized  the 
support  of  Randolph,  and  the  interest  of  Sir  Robert  South- 
well, Sir  Leoline  Jenkins,  and  perhaps  of  other  English  offi- 
cials, that  he,  rather  than  an  Englishman,  was  chosen  to  carry 
out  the  policy  of  royal  control,  thus  saving  Massachusetts 
from  the  usual  type  of  colonial  governor.  He  was  ambitious 


24  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

for  position  and  power  for  himself  and  anxious  for  the  pros- 
perity of  the  colony;  and  in  the  brief  period  of  his  first  ad- 
ministration he  disappointed  the  greedy  self-seekers  like 
Randolph,  and  gave  Massachusetts  a  just  government. 

On  October  23,  1684,  the  judgment  against  the  Massachu- 
setts charter  was  formally  entered  in  Chancery.1  At  once  the 
Lords  of  Trade  began  to  prepare  plans  for  the  control  of  New 
England  and  to  make  preliminary  drafts  of  the  commissions 
and  instructions  for  Colonel  Kirke.2  Before  these  could  be 
perfected,  however,  Charles  II  died,  and  in  the  confusion 
which  followed  the  accession  of  his  brother  James  II  and  the 
disorders  of  Monmouth's  rebellion,  the  affairs  of  the  colonies 
were  held  in  abeyance.  Hence  it  was  not  until  September  that 
Randolph  could  accomplish  his  purpose  and  gain  a  commission 
for  Joseph  Dudley.3  Still  further  delays  kept  him  hi  England 
till  January,  1686,  when  he  finally  sailed  for  Boston,  arriving 
there  May  14. 

Unofficial  information  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Company  had 
reached  Boston  early  in  1685  ;  4  but,  aside  from  the  framing  of 
futile  appeals  to  the  king,  nothing  was  done.  Although  the 
government  had  no  legal  standing,  it  was  continued  until  the 
exemplification  of  the  judgment  against  the  charter  should  be 
formally  delivered.  The  regular  elections  to  the  General 
Court  took  place ;  but  such  was  the  apathy  and  so  small  the 
attendance,  that  it  was  necessary  to  urge  some  of  the  towns 
not  to  neglect  to  send  deputies  "at  their  perrill,"  and  to  call 
the  "ruend  elders"  of  the  several  towns  to  a  special  confer- 
ence."5 At  the  next  election,  May  12,  1686,  Dudley  was 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  4th  Series,  ii.  246. 

z  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iii.  332. 

*  Board  of  Trade,  Colonial  Entry  Book,  New  England  (Ms.),  61,  pp.  252-258. 

4  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  5th  Series,  viii.  300. 

8  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  v.  492. 


PRESIDENT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  25 

again  dropped  from  the  Court  of  Assistants,  and  Stoughton 
refused  to  serve. 

Two  days  later  Randolph  landed  in  Boston,  bringing  with 
him  the  exemplification  of  the  judgment  against  the  charter, 
and  the  commission  for  the  new  government.  He  at  once 
went  to  Roxbury  to  consult  with  Dudley  concerning  his  pro- 
cedure. The  judgment  and  the  commission  were  shown  to  a 
few  of  the  Council,  through  whom  the  news  spread ;  so  that 
on  the  following  Sunday,  Mr.  Willard  prayed  "not  for  the 
Governour  or  Government,  as  formerly;  but  spake  so  as 
implied  it  to  be  changed  or  changing.  It  seems  Mr.  Phillips 
at  the  Old  Church  prayed  for  the  Governour  and  Deputy 
Governour."  *  Together  Randolph  and  Dudley  drew  up  the 
summons  to  the  members  of  the  Council  and  made  ready  to 
assume  the  government.2  The  members  of  the  General  Court, 
though  long  prepared,  made  no  resistance,  but  contented 
themselves  with  trying  to  persuade  Dudley  not  to  accept  the 
commission,3  and  so  to  keep  the  government  in  their  own 
hands.  Failing  in  this,  they  broke  up,  "with  hopes  that 
either  some  unhappie  accident  in  affairs  of  state  at  home,  or 
by  dissension  raised  by  their  artifices  among  the  members  in 
this  new  government,  they  might  pervaile  so  far  as  to  dissolve 
this  new  constitution  and  then  reassume  the  government, 
which  to  accomplish  they  are  solissitouse." 4 

Dudley  himself  had  some  doubts  as  to  his  reception.  Early 
on  the  day  set  for  his  inauguration  he  sought  the  counsel  of 

1  SewalFs  Diary,  May  16, 1686,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections, 
5th  Series,  v.  138. 

8  The  summons  to  John  Winthrop  is  printed  ibid.,  6th  Series,  iii.  474. 

5  Sewall's  Diary,  May  18:  "Mr.  Phillips  had  very  close  Discourse  with  the 
President,  to  persuade  him  not  to  accept :  'twas  in  Mr.  Willard's  Study  Mon- 
day afternoon  just  at  night.  Mr.  Stoughton  and  Mather  there  too." 

4  Randolph  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  July  7  (?),  1686,  Toppan, 
Edward  Randolph,  iv.  88. 


26  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

Increase  Mather,  and  later  in  the  day  wrote  to  him  that  he 
never  wanted  his  favor  and  advice  so  much,  and  desired  that 
he  might  explain  the  reasons  for  his  procedure  at  this  crisis.1 
Unable  to  gain  so  valuable  an  ally,  he  put  on  a  bold  front 
and  met  the  Old  Court.  Entering  from  the  left  with  several 
of  his  Council,  he  took  his  seat  on  the  bench  and  addressed  the 
members  of  the  old  government,  who  were  seated  on  the 
north  side  of  the  chamber.  He  greeted  them  as  "considerable 
gentlemen  of  this  place  and  Inhabitants  of  all  parts  of  the 
countrey,"  and  informed  them  that  he  could  no  longer  deal 
with  them  as  the  Governor  and  Court.  He  then  displayed 
the  exemplification  of  the  judgment  against  the  charter  and 
the  commission  for  the  new  government.  He  offered  to  show 
them  his  instructions  from  the  king  and  letters  from  the  Lords 
of  Trade,  but  hoped  that  they  would  not  argue  about  the 
commands  contained  in  them.  He  disclaimed  any  intention 
of  harboring  thoughts  of  revenge  because  of  the  injuries  he  had 
received,  and  assured  them  that  although  no  address  of  the 
Governor  and  Court  could  come  to  the  ears  of  the  king,  yet 
he  and  his  Council  would  assist  in  getting  a  hearing  in  Eng- 
land for  what  "they  know  requisite  for  this  peoples  good."' 

Danforth  then  said,  "I  suppose  you  expect  no  reply  from 
the  Court?"  To  which  Dudley  answered,  "I  know  no 
Court  here  in  being  till  the  Kings  Court  be  in  order  and 
setled ;  and  it  will  incurr  the  Kings  displeasure  so  to  under- 
stand yourselves  and  I  suppose  what  I  now  speak  is  the  mind 
of  the  rest  of  the  Council  here  present."3  The  president  and 
the  Council  then  retired,  while  some  of  the  old  government 
spoke  their  minds.  Some  urged  a  protest ;  but  others,  Sewall 

1  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  i.  315  note. 

2  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Proceedings,  1863-1864,  p.  487. 

3  Ibid. 


PRESIDENT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  27 

among  them,  feeling  "that  the  foundations  being  destroyed 
what  can  the  Righteous  do,"  advised  acquiescence  in  the  present 
conditions. l 

Three  days  later,  on  May  20,  the  Court  passed  a  resolution 
replying  to  Dudley's  address  and  criticising  his  commission.  It 
declared  that  the  commission  contained  no  determinate  rule  for 
the  administration  of  justice ;  that  the  subjects  were  abridged 
of  their  liberties  as  Englishmen  both  in  the  matter  of  legisla- 
tion and  in  the  laying  of  taxes ;  indeed,  that  all  the  privileges 
of  the  subject  were  transferred  to  the  president  and  Council, 
"there  being  not  the  least  mention  of  an  assembly.  .  .  .  And 
therefore  wee  thinke  it  highly  concernes  yow  to  consider 
whither  such  a  comission  be  safe,  either  for  yow  or  us ;  but 
if  yow  are  so  sattisfied  therein  as  that  you  hold  yourselues 
oblejdged  thereby,  and  do  take  vpon  you  the  government  of 
this  people,  although  wee  cannot  give  our  assent  thereto,  yet 
hope  shall  demeane  ourselves  as  true  &  loyall  subjects  to  his 
majty,  and  humbly  make  our  addresses  vnto  God,  &,  in  due 
tune,  to  our  gracious  prince,  for  our  relief  e." 2  This  protest 
was  read  in  Dudley's  Council  on  June  i,  when  it  was  ordered 
that  Rawson,  who  signed  the  paper  as  secretary,  should  be 
examined  about  the  "libellous  paper;3"  but,  so  far  as  the 
record  shows,  nothing  was  done.  This  was  the  only  protest 
made  by  the  Court  or  by  an  assembly  of  the  people,  and  the 
new  government  was  quietly  established,  as  was  ordered  by 
the  commission. 

The  commission  on  which  the  government  of  Massachusetts 
was  based  first  recited  the  fact  that  the  old  Company  was  dis- 

1  Sewall's  Diary,  May  17,  1686,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collec- 
tions, 5th  Series,  v.  139. 

2  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  v.  515. 

'"Dudley  Records,"  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Proceedings,  ad 
Series,  xiii.  237—238. 


28  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

solved,  and  appointed  a  president  and  council  of  seventeen, 
seven  of  whom  should  make  a  quorum  for  the  transaction  of 
business. *  As  has  been  seen,  Joseph  Dudley  was  appointed 
president ;  and  the  Council  included  his  brother-in-law  Brad- 
street,  his  father-in-law  Tyng,  his  friend  and  confident  Stough- 
ton,  Wait,  and  Fitz-John  Winthrop,  and  other  members  of 
the  "honest"  party.2 

That  an  appointed  council  should  replace  an  elected  assembly 
was  characteristic  of  the  policy  of  the  Stuarts ;  but  the  terri- 
torial jurisdiction  assigned  to  the  Council  was  still  more  signifi- 
cant of  their  plan  for  the  regulation  of  New  England.  By  the 
fall  of  the  Massachusetts  charter  the  way  was  paved  for  the 
union  of  most  of  the  New  England  colonies.  New  Hamp- 
shire, already  directly  dependent  upon  the  king,  was  united 
to  Massachusetts;  and  the  territory  of  Maine,  the  purchase 
of  which  had  so  angered  Charles  II,  was  added  to  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  new  government.  That  part  of  Rhode  Island  west 
of  Narragansett  Bay  known  as  the  King's  Province  was  also 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Proceedings,  1863-1864,  p.  487;    also 
Board  of  Trade,  Colonial  Entry  Book,  New  England  (Ms.),  61,  pp.  252-258. 
Professor   Herbert   L.  Osgood,  in   his   American   Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth 
Century,  gives  the  most  extended  modern  account  of  the  temporary  govern- 
ment. 

2  On  May  29  Randolph  wrote  to  Blathwayt,  "This  acquaints  you  that  the 
25  following  the  presdt.  and  14  of  the  Councill  mett  at  Boston  and  taking  the 
oathes  were  entred  upon  the  Com1 :  Mr  Champernoon :    was  so  much  indis- 
posed that  twas  not  possible  for  him  to  come  to  Boston :   Butt  old  Mr  Brad- 
street  and  his  son  wholy  refused  to  accept  the  Commission  as  a  thing  contriued 
to  abridge  them  of  their  libertye  and  indeed  against  Magna  Charta :   and  Mr 
Saltenstall  also  diserted  vs."  (Goodrick,  Edward  Randolph,  171).     At  the  first 
meetings  of  the  Council  the  attendance  never  fell  below  nine,  but  on  June  13 
only  Dudley,  Stoughton,  Usher,  and  Randolph  were  present ;   however,  noth- 
ing but  formal  business  was  transacted.     On  three  other  occasions  less  than  a 
quorum  appeared,  but  at  these  meetings  there  was  no  business  of  importance. 
In  two  instances  the  records  show  the  insertion  of  the  same  name  twice  hi 
order  to  make  up  the  needed  quorum.     See  "Dudley  Records,"  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society,  Proceedings,  ad  Series,  xiii.  226  et  seq. 


PRESIDENT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  29 

annexed.  With  the  decrees  against  Massachusetts,  Randolph 
also  brought  notice  of  quo  warranto  proceedings  against  Rhode 
Island  and  Connecticut ;  and  it  was  planned  to  absorb  Plym- 
outh, which  never  had  a  royal  charter.  Thus  the  territorial 
policy  of  England  stands  out  clearly,  —  to  disregard  the  old 
charter  boundaries  and  to  unite  the  several  colonies  in  one 
jurisdiction.  Though  this  policy  was  initiated  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  Dudley,  it  is  more  clearly  seen  in  that  of  Andros, 
when  Plymouth,  Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut  were  actually 
absorbed  and  New  York  was  attached  to  New  England. 

The  powers  of  the  Council  also  show  very  clearly  the  con- 
trast between  the  highly  centralized  ideas  of  the  Stuarts  and 
the  democratic  constitution  of  New  England.  In  the  first 
place,  it  was  an  appointed  council  instead  of  an  elective 
assembly;  but  some  care  was  taken  to  see  that  the  various 
colonies  were  represented.  For  example,  Edward  Tyng  and 
Francis  Champernowne  were  from  Maine,  Robert  Mason  and 
Thomas  Hicks  from  New  Hampshire,  and  Fitz-John  Winthrop 
represented  the  King's  Province;  the  rest  of  the  members 
were  from  Massachusetts,  and  included  the  former  governor 
Bradstreet,  with  six  of  the  former  Assistants,  Stoughton, 
Bulkley,  Saltonstall,  Pyncheon,  Tyng,  and  Gidney.  This 
apparently  fair  representation  loses  much  of  its  force  when  it 
is  noted  that  all  of  the  councillors  were  from  one  party  in  the 
Court  of  Assistants,  and  that  at  the  last  election  only  three  of 
the  number  had  been  returned.  To  this  Council  was  given 
all  judicial,  military,  and  executive  power.  It  could  hear  and 
try  civil  and  criminal  causes,  allowing  appeals  to  England  in 
cases  involving  more  than  three  hundred  pounds,  and  it  could 
erect  inferior  courts.  It  had  no  legislative  power,  nor  could 
it  levy  new  taxes;  but  it  could  collect  the  old  ones  and  was 
intrusted  with  the  expenditure  of  the  proceeds.  Liberty  of 


30  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

conscience  was  granted  to  all,  and  it  was  promised  "  that  such 
especially  as  shall  be  Conformable  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of 
England  shall  be  particularly  Countenanced  and  encouraged." 
In  short,  its  powers  were  not  unlike  those  which  the  old  Court 
of  Assistants  had  possessed.  In  the  former  case,  however, 
the  magistrates  owed  their  office  to  annual  election,  while  the 
present  Council  was  appointed  during  the  pleasure  of  the  king. 

On  May  25  the  new  Council  held  its  first  meeting.  Dudley 
made  a  long  speech  in  which  he  bespoke  the  cooperation  of  all 
loyal  people,  promised  to  make  few  alterations  in  the  govern- 
ment, and  those  as  "plain  and  easie"  as  possible,  and  again 
disclaimed  all  thoughts  of  revenge  because  of  his  late  injuries.1 
The  government  was  then  proclaimed  with  considerable 
festivity,  the  health  of  the  king,  and  the  prosperity  of  the 
administration  being  drunk  in  wine  to  the  cost  of  twenty-one 
pounds.2 

The  first  sessions  of  the  Council  were  spent  in  reorganizing 
the  military  and  judicial  system  of  the  colony  and  providing 
for  the  support  of  the  government.3  In  so  doing,  Dudley 
fulfilled  his  promise  to  make  as  few  alterations  as  possible. 
There  were  not  many  changes  among  the  newly  appointed 
justices  of  peace  or  militia  officers,  the  most  important  removal 
being  that  of  Danforth  from  his  position  as  president  of  the 
Council  of  Maine,  while  Wait  Winthrop  was  made  commander 
of  the  castle  in  Boston,  in  place  of  Bulkley,  who  was  unable 
to  serve.  Practically  the  former  system  of  courts  was  con- 

1  "Dudley  Records,"  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, Proceedings,  2d  Series, 
xiii.  226. 

2  Ibid.  269. 

*  Ibid.  230-237,  May  26-28,  1686.  A.  S.  Batchellor,  in  his  edition  of  the 
Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  i.  810-827,  reproduces  a  facsimile  of  an  early  folio  of 
the  orders  passed  by  Dudley's  Council;  these,  with  additions  and  notes,  are 
also  printed,  ibid.  pp.  100-142. 


PRESIDENT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  31 

tinued,  with  the  substitution  of  the  President  and  Council  for 
the  Governor  and  Assistants ;  but,  according  to  the  directions 
of  the  commission,  appeals  to  England  were  allowed,  —  an 
innovation  in  Massachusetts.  Stoughton  was  appointed 
deputy-president  and  chief  justice.  Although  the  form  of 
the  courts  remained  the  same,  there  was  much  more  system 
and  carefulness  of  procedure :  a  probate  court  was  established 
in  Boston,  and  a  record  of  births,  marriages,  and  deaths  was 
ordered  to  be  kept.  Since  the  commission  did  not  allow  the 
levying  of  new  taxes,  the  old  excise  and  custom  duties  were 
continued,  and  a  system  of  judicial  fees  was  also  established.1 

The  posts  of  collectors  of  the  ports  and  clerks  of  the  county 
courts  were  great  prizes  on  account  of  the  fees  attached  to 
these  offices.  In  Boston,  much  to  Randolph's  disgust,  Dudley 
appointed  his  son  Thomas,  "a  stripling  of  16  yeares  old," 
as  collector,  and  added  some  of  Randolph's  perquisites  to  the 
office.2  In  Maine  and  New  Hampshire,  however,  Randolph 
had  freer  hand,  and  sold  the  right  of  exercising  these  functions 
to  deputies  for  the  sum  of  ten  pounds  a  year.3  These  and  other 
positions  were  all  filled  with  men  "well  affected  to  his  Majtle, 
the  cheifest  whereof  being  Members  of  the  Council!.  "4 

In  the  executive  and  administrative  relations  with  the 
territories  under  his  control,  Dudley  and  his  Council  accom- 
plished some  really  constructive  work.  The  Indians  of  New 
Hampshire  and  Maine  were  induced  to  renew  their  treaties  of 
friendship,  though  there  were  signs  of  an  approaching  out- 
break of  hostilities.5  The  Narragansett  country,  the  King's 
Province,  was  visited  by  Dudley  on  June  23,  and  he  held  there 

1  "Dudley  Records,"  241-243. 

2  Randolph  to  Southwell,  July  iof  1686,  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iv.  91. 
'"Dudley  Records,"  261. 

4  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iv.  81. 

6  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  iii.  503. 


32  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

a  formal  court  in  which  he  published  his  commission,  admin- 
istered oaths,  and  appointed  militia  commanders.1  The 
courts  of  justice  were  reorganized,2  long-inherited  disputes 
were  settled,  and  an  efficient  government  in  that  turbulent 
and  disputed  region  was  established.  This  work,  peculiarly 
congenial  to  Dudley,  was  well  done,  and  its  effects  were  perma- 
nent ;  indeed,  whenever  in  his  career  Dudley  had  a  fair  oppor- 
tunity to  exercise  his  administrative  ability  he  was  usually 
successful. 

As  soon  as  the  Council  was  fairly  organized,  it  prepared  an 
address  to  the  king  and  a  report  to  the  Lords  of  Trade.  To 
the  king  the  councillors  expressed  their  gratitude  for  granting 
freedom  of  religion,  and  prayed  for  further  commands  for 
"the  more  in  tire  dependance  of  Your  Majesties  Territory  and 
Dominion  upon  Your  Majties  Sacred  Person,  and  the  Crown 
of  England  for  future  times  for  ever."3  To  the  Committee 
they  reported  what  they  had  done,  and  said  that  the  militia 
was  in  the  hands  of  those  well  affected  to  the  government, 
"the  cheifest  whereof  being  Members  of  the  Councill."4 
But  their  real  spirit  is  seen  in  the  following  instruction,  which 
was  voted  in  the  Council  but  which  does  not  appear  in  their 
report  to  the  Lords  of  Trade:  "That  it  will  be  much  for  his 
Majtys  service,  and  needfull  for  the  support  of  the  Govern- 
ment, &  prosperity  of  all  these  Plantations,  to  allow  a  well 
regulated  Assembly  to  represent  the  people  in  making  needfull 
lawes  and  levyes."5 

One  of  Randolph's  most  frequent  complaints  against  the 
former  government  was  that  it  did  not  tolerate  the  services  of 
the  Church  of  England.  In  order  to  rectify  this  defect,  the 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  ist  Series,  v.  246. 

1  Rhode  Island  Colony  Records,  iii.  200. 

*  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph  iv.  84.     *  Ibid.  80.     '  "Dudley  Records,"  244. 


PRESIDENT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  33 

commission  for  the  new  government  directed  that  special 
encouragement  should  be  given  to  those  who  conformed  to 
the  Church  of  England.  To  minister  to  these,  the  Reverend 
Robert  Ratcliffe,  a  clergyman  of  the  Established  Church,  was 
sent  to  Boston  with  Randolph  by  the  Bishop  of  London. 
Both  Ratcliffe  and  Randolph  expected  that  some  notice  would 
be  taken  of  this  act,  and  that  Ratcliffe  would  have  some  offi- 
cial part  in  the  inauguration  ceremonies ;  but  he  was  ignored 
by  Dudley,  who  more  correctly  judged  the  temper  of  the  people 
and  resolved  to  give  as  little  offence  as  possible.  Nor  did 
the  Council  give  Ratcliffe  more  encouragement:  as  there 
were  but  two  churchmen  on  the  board,  —  Mason,  who  soon 
went  to  England,  and  Randolph  himself,  —  few  favors  were 
shown  to  the  church.  Ratcliffe  first  came  before  the  Council 
and  asked  for  a  place  in  which  to  hold  his  services.1  Mason 
and  Randolph  suggested  that  one  of  the  three  churches  in 
Boston  be  turned  over  to  him;  and  when  this  was  refused 
they  obtained  "the  East-End  of  the  Town  House,  where  the 
Deputies  used  to  meet ;  untill  those  who  desire  his  Ministry 
shall  provide  a  fitter  place." 2  Thinking  that  toleration  meant 
support,  Randolph  and  Ratcliffe  suggested  that  each  of  the 
three  Boston  churches  should  contribute  twenty  shillings  a 
year  for  the  support  of  Ratcliffe's  ministry ;  but  the  Council, 
finding  that  an  amount  equal  to  fifty  pounds  a  year  was  raised 
among  his  auditors,  decided  that  he  should  look  to  them  for 
his  support.3  Over  this  treatment,  Randolph  vented  his 
spleen  in  a  letter  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  particu- 
larly blaming  Dudley,  of  whom  he  says,  "As  to  Mr.  Dudley 
our  President  he  is  a  N:  Conformist  minister  &  for  severall 

1  "Dudley  Records,"  253. 

2  Sewall's  Diary,  May  26,  1686,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collec- 
tions, 5th  Series,  v.  141.  '"Dudley  Records,"  262. 


34  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

yeares  preach'd  in  New  Engd  till  he  became  a  Magistrate  & 
So  continued  for  many  yeares,  but  finding  his  interest  to  faile 
amongst  that  party,  sett  up  for  a  King's  man,  and  when  in 
London,  he  made  his  application  to  my  Lord  of  London  and 
was  liked  of  by  some  about  his  late  Majties  person  .  .  .  [but] 
I  find  him  very  treacherous."  1 

The  people  were  greatly  interested,  and  crowded  to  the  town 
house  when  the  first  service  was  held  on  June  6,  i686.2  While 
the  new  ceremonies  might  attract  the  crowd,  the  ministers 
were  alive  to  the  intrusion,  and  exclaimed  "agl  ye  Common 
Prayer,  calling  it,  mans  Invention  &  there  is  more  hopes  that 
whoremongers  &  adulterers  will  go  to  heaven  than  those  of 
ye  C  of  EngV3  Neither  these  harsh  words  nor  the  conduct 
of  the  Council  improved  Randolph's  temper,  and  he  did  not 
scruple  to  multiply  accusations.  "They  give  encouragement 
to  all  phannatticks  of  all  Sects  &  receive  them  from  all  places," 
he  wrote  to  the  archbishop.4  He  reported  that  they  had  wel- 
comed Mr.  Morton,  an  excommunicated  minister,  and  planned 
to  make  him  president  of  Harvard  College ;  and  finally  went 
so  far  as  to  accuse  Dudley  and  his  friends  of  appropriating  for 
private  ends  funds  entrusted  to  them  for  the  evangelization 
of  the  Indians.5 

Though  the  old  government  acquiesced  hi  the  change  of 
rule,  one  of  its  last  acts  was  to  pass  an  order  guarding  its 
archives,8  and  it  was  one  of  the  unsuccessful  attempts  of 
Dudley's  administration  to  gain  possession  of  these  records; 

'Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iv.  103-110. 

2  Foote's  Annals  of  King's  Chapel,  i.  42-51,  contains  an  account  of  the 
organization  of  the  church,  and  on  page  44  gives  a  facsimile  of  the  record  of 
the  first  meeting,  at  which  Benjamin  Bullivant  and  Richard  Banks  were  chosen 
churchwardens. 

3  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iv.  106.      5  Ibid.  131. 

4  July  7  ( ?),  1686,  ibid.  103-110.  6  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  v.  516. 


PRESIDENT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  35 

but,  though  letters  were  despatched  to  Rawson,  the  secretary 
of  the  former  government,  and  committees  were  appointed  to 
receive  the  archives,1  the  papers  were  not  surrendered  until 
the  administration  of  Andros.  The  treasurer  of  the  old 
government  gave  less  trouble,  and  his  accounts  were  received 
on  July  17,  i686.2 

The  only  open  resistance  that  Dudley  experienced  came 
from  a  few  isolated  individuals,  and  these  were  dealt  with 
shortly  and  sharply.  Four  men  who  failed  to  observe  a  fast 
appointed  by  the  President  and  Council  were  called  before 
the  Council  and  forced  to  make  submission  and  take  the  oath 
of  allegiance.3  One  John  Gold  of  Topsfield  was  also  summoned 
for  speaking  "seditious  words" ;  he  was  bound  over  and  tried 
by  the  Superior  Court,  where  he  was  found  guilty  and  sen- 
tenced to  pay  a  fine  of  one  hundred  pounds  and  to  give  a  bond 
for  his  future  good  behavior.  This  sentence  was  afterwards 
reduced  to  twenty  pounds,  and  finally  Gold  was  discharged ; 4 
but  the  lesson  was  well  learned,  for  there  is  no  further  record 
of  any  seditious  speaking,  of  which  Dudley  was  at  all  times 
peculiarly  suspicious. 

Dudley  owed  his  position  to  Randolph,  who  entirely  mis- 
judged his  character.  Randolph  imagined  that  Dudley's 
willingness  to  serve  the  king  and  to  profit  personally  by  the 
change  in  government  would  give  himself  a  free  hand  to 
make  his  fortune  and  to  obtain  a  reward  for  the  eleven  years 
of  difficult  labor  which  he  had  performed.  He  thought  that 
there  should  be  a  partnership  for  plunder  between  him  and 
Dudley;  and  when  he  found  that  the  President  intended  to 

1  "Dudley  Records,"  250,  271,  273,  281. 
tlbid.  235,  263. 

1  Ibid.  262,  263,  July  27,  30,  1686. 

4  Ibid.  263,  264,  269,  276,  July  30,  August  5  and  25,  September  25,  Novem- 
ber 9,  1686. 


36  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

make  his  government  as  tolerable  as  possible  for  Massachu- 
setts his  wrath  knew  no  bounds.  "I  am  treated  by  Mr. 
Dudley  worse  than  by  Mr.  Danforth,"  *  he  wrote;  and,  to 
Randolph,  Danforth  was  the  arch-traitor  to  the  king.  He 
misjudged  the  character  of  both  the  President  and  the  Council, 
who,  while  loyally  attempting  to  carry  out  the  commission  of 
the  king,  were  making  as  few  changes  in  the  spirit  of  govern- 
ment as  possible.  In  his  disgust,  he  wrote  to  Sir  Robert 
Southwell  that  the  government  of  Massachusetts  was  "still 
but  ye  Gov*  &  Company."2 

His  complaints  and  accusations  were  numerous.  It  has 
already  been  seen  how  he  utilized  the  religious  difficulties  to 
discredit  Dudley.  He  went  even  further.  He  accused  the 
President  and  Council  of  hampering  him  in  the  exercise  of 
his  duties  as  collector  of  customs.3  He  asserted  that  Dudley 
was  an  accomplice  of  Captain  George  of  the  royal  frigate  Rose, 
in  which  Randolph  had  come  to  Boston,  and  that  they  were 
profiting  at  the  expense  of  his  perquisites  and  to  the  detriment 
of  the  royal  revenue.4  The  records  show,  however,  that  ports 
of  entry  were  established  and  that  ships  were  seized  for  break- 
ing the  trade  laws ;  and  it  may  be  believed  that  under  the  eyes 
of  the  royal  officials,  the  Massachusetts  government  was 
making  some  effort  to  carry  out  its  instructions  along  these 
lines.  Randolph's  occasions  for  complaint  were  probably  due 
to  two  circumstances.  He  had  quarrelled  with  Captain 
George  on  their  long  five  months'  voyage  from  England,  and 
George  had  started  a  cruel  slander  concerning  Randolph's 
wife ; 5  George,  moreover,  was  extremely  sensitive  concerning 

1  Randolph  to  Blathwayt,  July  28,  1686,  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iv. 
97-100. 

*July  10,  1686,  ibid.  91-03. 

*  Randolph  to  the  Lord  Treasurer,  August  23,  1686,  ibid.  113. 

4  Randolph  to  Blathwayt,  as  above. 

8  Randolph  to  Southwell,  July  10,  1686,  ibid.  91-93. 


PRESIDENT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  37 

his  prerogatives  and  rebuked  Randolph  and  his  men  for  exceed- 
ing their  authority.1  Furthermore,  Dudley  and  his  Council 
were  forced  to  decide,  in  a  question  of  jurisdiction,  against  the 
wishes  of  Randolph  and  to  release  a  ship  which  he  desired 
condemned.2  It  is  significant  that  these  charges  were  not 
acted  upon  in  England  ;  nor  could  those  of  Dudley's  enemies 
who  later  attacked  him  most  bitterly  find  any  other  evidence 
of  such  misdoing  than  these  accusations  of  Randolph. 

In  addition  to  the  charges  of  non-enforcement  of  the  trade 
laws  and  misappropriation  of  trust  funds,  Randolph  also 
accused  Dudley  of  engrossing  great  tracts  of  land.3  To  this 
charge  it  is  sufficient  to  note  that  there  is  no  record  that  any 
lands  were  granted  by  the  Council  either  to  Dudley  or  to  any 
of  the  members  of  his  Council.  On  the  contrary,  Dudley 
petitioned  for  a  large  grant  of  land  in  New  Hampshire,  and 
this  petition  was  referred  to  Andros  for  investigation.4 

Taken  as  a  whole,  the  government  of  Dudley  and  his  Council 
was  not  "hard  or  grievous  to  bear."  Few  innovations  were 
made  ;  for,  in  spite  of  their  loyalty  to  the  king,  Dudley  and 
his  associates  were  men  of  Massachusetts,  and  as  such  were 
conservative.  There  may  have  been  favoritism  and  nepotism, 
and  perhaps  cases  of  corruption;  but  the  government  was 
neither  tyrannical  nor  cruel.  In  many  ways  the  Council 
tried  to  soften  its  rule,  as  is  seen  in  its  petition  for  an  assembly  ; 
but  the  administration  was  hated  because  it  rested  not  on  the 
will  of  the  people,  but  on  a  commission  of  the  crown.  Through- 
out his  life  this  was  the  charge  most  often  urged  against 
Dudley,  —  that  he  had  accepted  an  illegal  commission.  The 


*"  Dudley  Records,"  272. 

1  Randolph  to  the  Lord  Treasurer,  August  23,  1686,  Toppan,  Edward  Ran- 
dolph, iv.  115. 

4  Instructions  to  Andros,  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  iii.  547. 


38  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

accusations  of  Randolph  were  soon  dropped,  but  the  people 
could  never  forget  that  Dudley  had  been  the  royal  instrument 
for  the  overthrow  of  the  charter.  No  matter  how  fair  an 
administration  he  had  given,  he  was  hated  as  a  tool  of  the  king 
and  a  betrayer  of  the  charter. 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  the  attitude  of  the  people  tow- 
ard Dudley  with  their  feeling  toward  Stoughton.  Stoughton 
had  been  an  agent  in  England,  and  like  Dudley  had  sought 
some  office  from  Randolph  when  the  government  should  be 
overthrown ; l  but  he  had  returned  before  the  final  assault 
upon  the  charter,  had,  in  a  measure,  lived  down  his  unpopu- 
larity, and  now,  though  deputy-president,  chief  justice,  and 
Dudley's  confidant,  he  was  thought  by  the  people  to  be  acting 
in  their  interests  to  keep  out  worse  tyrants.  Dudley,  on  the 
other  hand,  who  was  not  more  unsuccessful  in  England  than 
Stoughton,  but  who  had  profited  immediately  by  the  change 
in  government,  was  universally  detested.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  it  was  Dudley's  alliance  with  Randolph  that  had  done 
much  to  save  the  colony  from  a  man  like  Kirke  and  to  put  it 
under  the  rule  of  a  native ;  and  his  administration  proved  that 
such  a  government  was  easier  to  bear  than  one  under  a  royal 
governor,  even  of  the  Andros  type. 

1  Randolph  to  Stoughton,  July  18,  1678:  "...  I  feare  therefore  that  I 
shall  not  gett  a  positive  direction  from  the  King  as  you  intended,  but  feare 
not  but  I  will  gett  you  into  some  place  of  profitt  &  advantage.  .  .  .  W*  money 
I  lay  out  in  yr  busines  shall  account  at  our  next  meeting. "  Toppan,  Edward 
Randolph,  iii.  31. 


CHAPTER  III 
NEW  ENGLAND  REGULATED 

JOSEPH  DUDLEY  AND  THE  RULE  OF  ANDROS 
1686-1689 

THE  annulment  of  the  Massachusetts  charter  was  necessary 
because  the  colony  was  unwilling  to  submit  to  English  legis- 
lation and  control.  The  old  government  of  Massachusetts, 
with  its  ideas  of  particularism  and  independence,  could  not 
be  allowed  to  thwart  the  designs  of  the  king  and  the  Lords  of 
Trade.  The  presidency  of  Joseph  Dudley  was  also  but  a  step 
in  making  those  ideals  effective  in  New  England,  and  was  but 
a  temporary  expedient.  Dudley  was  chosen  partly  through 
the  influence  which  he  was  able  to  exert  upon  the  committee, 
and  partly  because,  in  the  disordered  condition  of  England, 
he  seemed  an  easily  available  man.  It  was  not  the  least  point 
in  his  favor  that  he  was  a  native  of  New  England,  for  it  was 
believed  that  under  such  a  one  the  people  of  Massachusetts 
would  be  more  content  to  accept  English  control  and  dicta- 
tion; but  neither  the  form  of  government  nor  the  territory 
over  which  he  ruled  was  considered,  by  the  Lords  of  Trade, 
as  permanently  settled. 

Dudley's  commission  was  dated  September  27,  1685,  but 
his  government  was  not  inaugurated  till  May  17,  1686;  and 
in  June  of  that  year  a  more  comprehensive  commission  was 
issued  to  Sir  Edmund  Andros.1  Dudley's  commission,  as  has 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  $d  Series,  vii.  139-149. 

39 


40  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

been  seen,  established  a  council  which  was  an  executive  and 
judicial  body,  but  possessed  no  power  to  levy  taxes  or  to  make 
laws;  the  system  instituted  by  the  commission  granted  to 
Andros  perpetuated  the  idea  of  government  by  an  appointed 
council,  but  with  greatly  enlarged  powers.  The  new  council 
was  allowed  to  make  laws,  which  must,  however,  be  sent  to 
England  for  approval;  and  with  the  consent  of  the  council 
the  governor  was  instructed  to  "continue  to  Raise  and  Levy 
such  Rates  Taxes  and  Impositions,  as  are  now  or  have  lately 
been  Laid,"  while  new  and  additional  ones  were  to  be  levied 
only  after  the  consent  of  the  king  had  been  obtained.1  The 
other  powers  granted  in  this  commission  were  not  unlike  those 
given  to  Dudley.  Such  a  government  might  enable  the  king 
and  the  Lords  of  Trade  to  make  their  commands  effective ; 
it  would  make  possible  many  of  the  needed  reforms;  it  would 
make  Massachusetts  truly  a  part  of  the  dominions  of  the 
crown ;  but  it  was  entirely  contrary  to  the  political  experience 
and  habits  of  thought  of  the  New  Englanders.  To  ask  a 
people  accustomed  to  annually  elected  magistrates  and  an 
assembly,  to  surrender  these  privileges,  was  to  doom  such  an 
experiment  to  failure.  The  powers  granted  to  Dudley  had 
seemed  too  great  and  too  dangerous,  and  even  some  of  his 
Council  had  desired  an  assembly;  but  the  powers  given  to 
Andros  seemed  nothing  less  than  tyrannical. 

In  the  two  commissions  granted  to  Andros  in  1686  and 
i688,2  the  territorial  adjustment  of  the  northern  English 
colonies  was  completed.  For  ten  years  the  question  of  their 
consolidation  had  been  under  discussion.  Randolph's  reports 
had  shown  the  evils  of  having  so  many  divided  jurisdictions 

1  Andres's  instructions  of  1686,  Laws  of  New  Hampshire  (ed.  Batchellor), 
i.  155-168. 

2  Commissions  and  instructions,  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  iii.  537-55°- 


THE  RULE  OF  ANDROS  41 

and  had  advised  their  union  under  a  governor  appointed  by 
the  king.  In  the  commission  granted  to  Dudley  a  decided 
advance  was  made,  for  Maine  and  New  Hampshire  were 
united  with  Massachusetts.  Even  wider  plans,  however, 
were  under  discussion  by  the  Lords  of  Trade ;  and  before  the 
commission  to  Dudley  was  issued  Randolph  was  ordered  to 
prepare  charges  against  both  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island, 
with  the  purpose  of  vacating  their  charters  by  quo  warranto  pro- 
ceedings and  uniting  them  to  Massachusetts.1  A  copy  of  the  writ 
against  Rhode  Island  was  received  by  Randolph  in  1686,  and 
upon  its  service  Rhode  Island  submitted  to  the  crown.2  Con- 
necticut was  able  to  take  advantage  of  technicalities  and  so  to 
postpone  her  submission.  Owing  to  various  delays  two  writs 
issued  against  her  were  outlawed  before  they  could  be  served,  but 
a  third  one,  prepared  October  23, 1686,  was  served  in  December 
of  that  year.  Just  before  this,  Andros  arrived  with  instruc- 
tions to  assume  the  government  of  Connecticut  in  case  that 
colony  should  submit  to  the  king.  In  1687,  after  considerable 
correspondence,  Andros  and  several  of  his  Council  went  to 
Hartford,  where  on  October  31  he  took  control  of  the  govern- 
ment and  the  colony  was  annexed  to  his  jurisdiction.3  The 
governor,  Treat,  and  the  secretary,  Allyn,  were  added  to  the 
Council  to  represent  Connecticut.  But  though  all  New  England 
was  brought  under  one  jurisdiction,  the  Lords  of  Trade  were 
not  yet  satisfied:  their  attention  was  turned  to  New  York 
and  the  Jerseys.  In  1688  the  proprietors  of  the  Jerseys  sur- 
rendered their  charters,  and  Dongan,  governor  of  New  York, 

1  July,  1685,  Toppan,  Edward  Randolph,  iv.  24. 

2  Rhode  Island  Colony  Records,  iii.  190.     On  June  27,  1686,  Randolph  wrote 
to  Povey,  "  I  left  with  the  Gon^  of  R :  Island  a  Superannuated  Summons  of  the 
Quo  Warrto  ....    They  are  a  sad  sort  of  Mortalls  as  you  euer  heard  of." 
—  Goodrick,  Edward  Randolph,  178-179. 

8  Connecticut  Colony  Records,  iii.  248. 


42  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

was  superseded.1  A  new  commission  was  issued  to  Andros 
whereby  he  was  made  governor  of  practically  the  whole 
region  north  of  the  Delaware  River,  representatives  from  New 
York  and  New  Jersey  were  added  to  his  Council,  and  a  single 
government  was  established  for  the  whole  region.2  The  plans 
of  the  Lords  of  Trade  were  now  complete,  and  they  were  ready 
to  enjoy  the  advantages  of  their  policy. 

From  the  English  point  of  view,  this  policy  was  statesman- 
like and  had  many  obvious  advantages.  To  England  the 
territory  of  the  several  colonies  seemed  small  and  their  conflict- 
ing claims  and  jurisdictions  petty.  The  Committee  was 
weary  of  listening  to  disputes  over  boundaries  and  titles  that 
were  comparatively  unimportant.  It  was  difficult  to  deal 
with  nine  separate  governments  and  to  enforce  a  harmonious 
policy  in  five  separate  assemblies.  A  consolidation  of  these 
territories  and  the  establishment  of  a  government  easily  con- 
trolled by  the  crown  seemed  desirable.  Not  only  would  the 
petty  disputes  cease,  but  the  administration  of  the  law  of 
England  and  her  colonial  policy  would  be  effective.  In 
addition,  the  military  advantages  were  obvious.  Already  the 
crown  had  experienced  difficulties  in  directing  the  military 
strength  of  the  several  colonies  which  augured  ill  for  the 
future.  Under  this  plan  no  such  difficulties  were  anticipated, 
and  it  was  expected  that  the  government  could  direct  the 
military  resources  of  the  united  colonies  as  its  policy  might 
demand. 

These  very  advantages,  however,  made  the  execution  of 
the  plan  impossible  in  America.  In  all  the  New  England 
colonies  the  governments  were  intensely  democratic  and  de- 
pendent on  the  frequently  expressed  will  of  the  people.  In  all 
there  was  a  dread  of  executive  usurpation.  Each  colony 

1  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  iii.  550.  *  Ibid.  537-542. 


THE  RULE  OF  ANDROS  43 

was  jealous  of  its  own  resources,  and  was  unwilling,  save  under 
the  greatest  necessity,  to  employ  its  troops  outside  of  its  own 
borders.  Each  had  a  policy  of  its  own  which  in  few  cases 
would  coincide  with  that  of  England,  and  which,  even  in 
those  cases,  commended  itself  to  the  colonists  not  as  the  policy 
of  England,  but  as  their  own.  Further  dependence  upon 
England  and  English  control  was  not  desired  by  the  great 
majority  of  the  people;  rather  they  wished  greater  freedom 
and  independence  to  carry  out  their  own  ideals.  Finally, 
the  foundation  of  the  New  England  colonies  was  the  result  of 
particularism,  and  each  felt  its  own  individuality  intensely. 
If  the  colonists  themselves  had  failed  to  conquer  their  own 
prejudices  and  make  the  old  New  England  Confederation 
permanent,  it  could  hardly  be  hoped  that  a  plan  so  alien  to 
their  thoughts  as  this  could  succeed. 

Thus  far  the  policy  of  England  had  been  successful  because 
it  had  involved  legal  questions  which  had  been  decided  by 
English  judges.  There  was,  moreover,  enough  doubt  in  the 
colonies  to  prevent  open  resistance  until  the  results  of  this 
policy  should  be  clearly  seen.  In  order  to  utilize  the  advan- 
tages thus  far  gained  much  depended  upon  the  choice  of  the 
governor  and  his  advisers ;  and  in  the  appointment  of  Andros, 
the  Committee  displayed  the  same  care  which  it  had  shown 
in  the  substitution  of  Dudley  for  Kirke.1  Sir  Edmund  Andros 
was,  it  is  true,  a  favorite  of  James  II ;  but  he  was  personally 
honest  and  incorrupt.  He  had  been  governor  of  New  York 
and  had  first-hand  knowledge  of  the  situation  in  New  Eng- 

1  Whitmore  (Andros  Tracts,  i.  pp.  xxiii-xxvii)  was  one  of  the  first  to  attempt 
to  defend  the  character  of  Andros  from  the  charges  of  Palfrey  and  the  older 
historians.  Professor  Osgood,  in  his  American  Colonies  in  the  Seventeenth  Cen- 
tury, iii.  393-415,  reviews  the  administration  of  Andros  in  an  equally  favor- 
able light ;  while  Professor  Charming,  in  his  History  of  the  United  States,  ii. 
173-185,  from  a  fresh  reading  of  the  records  takes  a  more  severe  view. 


44  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

land.  He  was  a  soldier,  but  not  a  cruel  man,  and  in  his 
former  experience  in  New  York  and  his  subsequent  adminis- 
tration in  Virginia  he  displayed  considerable  liberality.  He 
was  not,  however,  broad-minded,  but  a  practical  man  who, 
without  tact  and  with  little  sympathy  for  the  ideals  of  others, 
attempted  to  perform  his  duty,  which,  as  he  believed,  was  to 
make  the  will  of  his  superiors  effective.  It  was  not  his  per- 
sonal character,  or  his  personal  failings  (though  these  were 
many),  but  rather  the  task  which  he  was  called  upon  to  per- 
form, that  caused  the  failure  of  the  English  policy  in  New 
England. 

With  the  arrival  of  Andros  at  Boston,  December  19,  1686, 
Dudley's  temporary  administration  came  to  an  end.  On  the 
following  day  Sir  Edmund  took  the  oaths  from  Dudley,  pub- 
lished his  commission,  and  assumed  control  of  the  government.1 

The  Council  consisted  of  twenty-seven  men  drawn  from 
the  territories  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Andros,  and  included 
twelve  of  those  who  had  been  members  of  Dudley's  Council. 
Seven  was  the  number  necessary  for  a  quorum,  but  business 
could  be  transacted  when  there  were  only  five  present.  From 
the  records  it  appears  that  the  largest  council  meeting  was 
attended  by  twenty-one;  but  that  number  was  never  again 
equalled.  Usually  the  attendance  consisted  of  Andros, 
Randolph,  Dudley  (who  was  absent  from  but  three  meetings) , 
and  Usher,  the  treasurer ;  while  Stoughton  and  Bulkley  were 
ordinarily  present  and  Wait  Winthrop  not  often  absent.2 

1  December  20,  1686,  "Andros  Records,"  American  Antiquarian  Society, 
Proceedings,  New  Series,  xiii.  240. 

2  That  the  enthusiastic  welcome  given  to  Sir  Edmund  was  perhaps  not  alto- 
gether spontaneous  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  extract  from  a  letter 
of  Randolph,  December  22,  1686:   "His  Excellence  was  receiued  at  his  Land- 
ing here  with  the  Huzzaes  of  an  innumerable  company  of  poeple  placed  by  the 
water  side  for  his  reception. "  Goodrick,  Edward  Randolph,  207. 


THE   RULE  OF  ANDROS  45 

Thus,  the  majority  of  those  who  were  responsible  for  the 
government  had  been  discredited  by  the  colonists,  but  were 
regarded  by  Randolph  as  well  affected;  they  were  the  same 
men  who  were  associated  with  Dudley  in  his  administration. 
Of  these  men  the  colonists  held  Andros,  Randolph,  and  Dud- 
ley responsible  for  the  so-called  "tyranny"  of  Andros.  This 
fact  is  significant  as  showing  that,  however  much  the  constitu- 
tional theory  of  the  government  may  have  been  questioned, 
it  was  the  specific  acts  committed  by  the  leaders  that  were 
most  hateful  to  the  people. 

As  a  member  of  Sir  Edmund's  government  Dudley  played 
an  important  part.  He  was  constant  in  his  attendance  on 
the  council  meetings,  and  his  advice  and  services  were  sought 
on  all  important  matters.  In  his  own  administration  a  collec- 
tion and  revision  of  the  laws  of  the  colony  had  been  begun,  and 
Andros  soon  put  Dudley  on  a  committee  to  continue  this 
work.1  He  was  appointed  on  the  important  committee  to 
prepare  the  revenue  bill,  and  on  the  one  to  fix  the  fees  for  the 
judges.2  He  was  made  chief  justice  of  the  Superior  Court,3 
and  censor  of  the  press  of  the  colony ; 4  he  also  served,  as  one 
of  the  judges,  on  the  committee  to  prepare,  the  bill  to  regulate 
the  town  meetings  and  the  election  of  the  town  officers.5  Thus 
from  his  activities  as  a  councillor  it  can  readily  be  seen  why 
the  people  hated  and  distrusted  him ;  but  it  was  not  so  much 
his  conduct  as  a  legislator,  in  which  Stoughton,  Bulkley,  and 
Winthrop  were  equally  involved,  as  it  was  his  acts  as  a  judge 
in  enforcing  the  laws  passed  that  aroused  the  greatest  oppo- 
sition. 

As  has  been  shown,  the  whole  theory  of  the  government  of 
Andros  was  questioned  by  the  people ;  but  in  the  operation  of 
this  government  three  points  aroused  bitter  opposition.  In 
l"  Andros  Records,"  246.  *  Ibid.  244.  *Ibid.  267.  * Ibid.  249.  ^Ibid.  478. 


46  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

determining  all  of  these,  Dudley  was  the  central  figure.  The 
question  of  obtaining  a  sufficient  revenue  for  the  support  of 
the  government  was  a  vital  one  for  the  Andros  administration. 
By  his  commission  Andros  was  directed  to  levy  taxes  for  this 
purpose;  while  by  his  instructions  he  was  directed  to  " con- 
tinue to  Raise  and  Levy  such  Rates  Taxes  and  Impositions 
as  are  now  or  have  lately  been  Laid  .  .  .  untill  upon  your 
further  Examination  and  inquiry  you  shall  represent  unto  us 
the  Nature  and  quality  of  Such  Rates,  .  .  .  how  the  same 
are  Raised,  .  .  .  and  what  other  Taxes  may  be  Raised  .  .  . 
as  also  what  shall  be  necessary  for  the  Support  of  the  annuall 
Charge  of  Our  Government  there." l  Technically  there  were 
no  revenue  laws  in  existence,  as  the  General  Court  had  voted, 
on  October  10,  1683,  that  all  laws  for  the  collection  of  taxes 
should  expire  in  i684.2  Nevertheless,  the  imposts  were  twice 
extended  for  a  year  at  a  time  and  collected  by  Dudley;3 
while  the  ordinary  country  rates  were,  in  1684  and  1685, 
levied  as  they  had  been  previously  to  i684,4  and  were  con- 
tinued by  Dudley.5  All  that  Andros  did  was  to  continue  these 
same  laws. 

He  was,  however,  in  the  "  Narrative  of  the  Proceedings  of  Sir 
Edmond  Androsse  and  his  Complices"  (an  ex  parte  statement 
prepared  by  some  of  his  councillors  after  the  overthrow  of  his 
government  in  1689,  possibly  to  extenuate  their  own  share  in  his 
government),  accused  of  putting  through  the  tax  bill  without 
counting  the  votes ; 6  and  in  a  letter  to  Cotton  Mather,  Dudley 

1  Laws  of  New  Hampshire  (ed.  Batchellor),  i.  158-159. 
*  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  v.  414. 

1  Ibid.  438,  476;    Whitmore's  Laws  of  1672,  p.  312;    "Dudley  Records," 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Proceedings,  2d  Series,  xiii.  241. 
4  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  v.  454,  505. 
8  "Dudley  Records,"  as  above. 
6  Andros  Tracts,  i.  140. 


THE  RULE  OF  ANDROS  47 

asserts  that  he  never  assented  to  the  tax  bill.1  That  there  was 
opposition  to  this  plan  of  continuing  the  former  taxes  the 
bare  official  records  testify,  for  the  bill  was  under  discussion 
for  more  than  a  week  in  several  council  meetings  at  which 
never  less  than  seventeen  were  present ;  and  the  records  also 
show  that  Stoughton  and  Hinckley  tried  to  delay  it  under  the 
"pretence  of  having  Some  amendments."2  Their  opposition, 
says  Randolph,  was  but  a  part  of  the  opposition  of  the  landed 
class:  "The  Merch1?  are  for  Land  Taxes;  but  Mr  Dudley 
Stoughton  and  others  who  haue  gott  very  large  tracts  of  Land 
are  for  Laying  all  vpon  the  trading  party." 3  Andros,  however, 
was  not  unreasonable;  he  insisted  that  the  taxes  and  rates 
which  were  "according  to  the  printed  Law  title  publick 
Charges"  should  be  levied  by  the  Council.4 

The  revenue  collected  according  to  the  old  law  was  not  suffi- 
cient to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  government.  Indeed, 
Andros  had  anticipated  as  much,  and  in  accordance  with  his 
instructions  had  so  reported  to  the  king.5  In  August,  1687, 
he  was  ready  to  make  certain  specific  recommendations, 
which  he  sent  to  the  king,6  and  on  November  3  the  following 
direction  was  sent  to  him :  "  We  approve  of  your  proceedings  in 
respect  of  the  revenue,  as  reported  in  your  letter  of  3 1  August, 
and  direct  you  to  carry  your  proposals  for  the  increase  of  cus- 
toms and  excise,  etc.,  into  effect."7  These  proposals  were 
incorporated  into  an  act  for  additional  revenue  and  imposts, 
and  were  passed  at  a  meeting  of  which  no  records  remain.8 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  501. 
*"  Andros    Records,"    American    Antiquarian    Society,    Proceedings,    New 
Series,  xiii.  256. 

3  Goodrick,  Edward  Randolph,  211. 

4  "Andros  Records,"  256. 

1  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  America  and  West  Indies,  1685-1688,  No.  1197. 
•  Ibid.  No.  1414.       T  Ibid.  No.  1502.       8  Connecticut  Colony  Records,  iii.  433. 


48  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

Thus,  although  Andros  may  have  been  overbearing  and 
arbitrary  in  his  dealings  with  his  Council,  it  is  hard  to  see 
anything  illegal  in  his  method  of  raising  money  for  the  support 
of  the  government;  on  the  contrary,  there  is  evidence  of  a 
desire  to  carry  out  his  instructions  in  the  face  of  opposition 
from  the  colonists.  He  continued  the  old  rates  in  spite  of  the 
attempt  of  some  to  shift  the  burden  of  the  taxes ;  and  levied 
additional  ones  only  after  he  had  laid  his  suggestions  before 
the  king  and  received  permission  to  do  so. 

It  was  Dudley's  part  in  enforcing  this  bill  which  made  him 
particularly  odious  to  the  people.  John  Appleton,  a  former 
Assistant,  and  the  Reverend  John  Wise  of  the  town  of  Ipswich, 
led  the  resistance.  On  the  evening  of  August  22,  1687,  the 
day  before  the  town-meeting  was  to  be  held,  several  oi  the 
inhabitants  of  Ipswich  met  at  Appleton's  house  "and  there 
discoursed  and  concluded  that  it  was  not  the  Towns  Duty 
any  way  to  assist  that  ill  method  of  raising  Money  without  a 
general  Assembly." l  Accordingly  the  next  day  the  town 
refused  to  elect  a  commissioner  to  assist  in  levying  the  pre- 
scribed rate.  As  a  result,  Appleton,  Wise,  and  four  others 
were  charged  with  contempt  and  tried  before  Dudley  and 
Stoughton.  In  his  examination  of  Wise,  it  is  asserted,  Dudley 
used  the  phrase  that  was  destined  to  trouble  him  in  his  later 
career,  "Mr  Wise  you  have  no  more  priviledges  left  you,  than 
not  to  be  sold  for  Slaves." 2  In  accordance  with  his  directions 
the  jury  rendered  a  verdict  of  guilty,  and  the  prisoners  were 
remanded  to  jail  for  three  weeks  and  then  heavily  fined  and 
put  under  bonds  for  future  good  behavior.  Legally,  Dudley's 
position  was  perhaps  correct  (though  it  is  charged  that  the 
case  was  tried  before  a  packed  jury),  and  doubtless  the  colonists 

1  Andros  Tracts,  i.  83.  See  also  Waters,  Ipswich  in  the  Massachusetts  Colony, 
237-255.  J  Andros  Tracts,  i.  85. 


THE  RULE  OF  ANDROS  49 

needed  some  sharp  lesson  to  make  them  realize  their  altered 
condition ;  but  it  was  unfortunate  for  Dudley  that  he  should 
have  been  the  person  to  teach  his  fellow-countrymen  this  lesson. 
No  defence  can  be  made  for  his  overbearing  manner  or  for  his 
harshness  in  the  examination  of  the  prisoners.  These  unfortu- 
nate characteristics  frequently  hindered  him  in  the  execution 
of  his  duties  and  rendered  him  hated  throughout  the  colonies. 
Since  the  commission  of  Andros  contained  no  provision  for 
a  general  colonial  assembly,  the  only  legal  gatherings  left  for 
the  people  were  their  town-meetings.  Whether  a  town  in 
Massachusetts  was,  like  Dorchester,  founded  without  the 
formal  consent  of  the  General  Court,  or,  like  the  later  towns, 
by  the  express  and  formal  action  of  the  Court,  all  of  them  con- 
sidered themselves  communities  incorporated  by  the  General 
Court  and  possessing  the  rights  of  self-government,  taxation, 
and  jurisdiction  over  the  lands  within  their  limits.  To  an 
English  lawyer  these  pretensions  seemed  illegal;  and  techni- 
cally, the  towns  in  Massachusetts,  being  created  by  a  non- 
sovereign  body,  had  no  legal  standing  as  corporations.  Em- 
phatically this  was  true  in  the  eyes  of  Andros  and  of  his 
English  associates  on  the  Council.  Therefore  it  is  not  strange 
that  the  governor  attempted  to  " regulate"  the  towns,  a  pro- 
ceeding which  greatly  infringed  upon  their  privileges.  The 
duties  of  the  towns  in  levying  taxes  were  discussed  by  the 
Council,  and  finally,  upon  the  report  of  a  special  committee  of 
which  Dudley  was  a  member,  a  bill  was  passed  making  it  un- 
lawful for  a  town  to  hold  meetings  except  at  designated  times, 
and  then  solely  for  the  purpose  of  electing  selectmen  and  con- 
stables and  a  tax  commissioner  to  assist  in  levying  the  rates 
voted  by  the  Governor  and  Council.1  Thus  the  town-meet- 
ings were  forbidden  to  criticise  or  discuss  the  conduct  of  the 

1  Connecticut  Colony  Records,  iii.  427. 


50  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

Governor  and  Council,  and  by  the  election  of  a  tax  commis- 
sioner were  forced  to  become  allies  of  the  government  in  the 
collection  of  taxes. 

But  a  still  more  serious  attack  was  made  upon  the  town 
system.  Andros  was  directed  by  his  commission  to  dispose  of 
such  lands  "as  now  or  hereafter  shall  be  in  our  power  to  dis- 
pose of,"  and  by  his  instructions  was  required  to  dispose  of 
"other  Lands  Tenements  and  Heriditam'ts  for  which  Our 
Royal  Confirmation  may  be  wanting."  This  clause  was 
probably  inserted  in  the  instructions  with  a  purpose,  and  its 
execution  was  designed  to  raise  serious  questions  concerning 
substantially  all  the  land  titles  in  Massachusetts.  Practically 
none  of  the  landowners  derived  'their  titles  from  the  king. 
An  Indian  deed  or  a  grant  from  the  General  Court  was  the 
most  that  was  thought  necessary ;  and  even  these  tenures  were 
not  usual,  the  majority  of  the  landholders  deriving  their  titles 
from  the  grants  of  towns,  corporations  which,  by  English  law, 
had  no  legal  standing.  In  addition  there  were  in  many  towns 
lands  or  commons  held,  not  by  any  individual,  but  by  the 
town  in  its  corporate  capacity.  Andros  and  his  advisers  held 
that  there  were  few  valid  titles  in  Massachusetts,  and  served 
writs  of  intrusion  on  various  individuals  to  force  them  to  take 
out  patents  and  pay  a  quitrent.  Moreover,  his  favorites  began 
to  petition  for  the  common  lands,  which,  they  asserted,  were 
illegally  held  by  the  towns. 

Dudley's  position  on  this  question  was  typical  and  consist- 
ent. He  advised  Andros  that  the  clause  in  his  commission 
referred  only  to  waste  lands,  not  to  those  held  by  individuals. 
He  spoke  openly  against  Randolph  when  he  asked  for  Nahant 
Neck  and  Cambridge  Common ; l  but  he  had  doubts  concern- 

1  Dudley  to  Cotton  Mather,  June  5,  1689,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  505. 


THE  RULE  OF  ANDROS  51 

ing  the  legality  of  his  own  titles,  and  believed  that  in  a  court  of 
law  they  would  be  held  invalid.  Yet  in  the  Council  he  never 
voted  to  grant  lands  already  occupied  to  any  but  their  present 
owners.  Unlike  Sewall,  who  after  many  waverings  and  ques- 
tionings finally  petitioned  for  the  confirmation  of  his  title,1 
Dudley  seems  to  have  sought  this  security  quite  willingly ; 2 
and  in  this  course  he  was  followed  by  some  of  the  leading  men 
in  the  colony.3 

If  the  government  of  Andros  was  in  direct  contradiction 
to  the  political  ideals  of  New  England,  the  logical  exercise  of 
its  powers  was  such  as  to  render  it  intolerable;  nor  was  the 
temper  of  Andros  or  Dudley  or  their  subordinates  conciliatory, 
but  rather  harsh  and  overbearing,  in  the  extreme.  Although 
the  news  of  the  success  of  William  of  Orange  was  known  in 
Massachusetts  in  March,  there  was  no  open  demonstration 
against  Andros  until  the  receipt  of  the  "Declaration"  which 
William  issued  upon  undertaking  the  invasion  of  England. 
By  this  he  declared  that  "all  Magistrates  who  have  been 
unjustly  turned  out,  shall  forthwith  ressume  their  former 
Employments."  Although  in  all  probability  this  clause 
applied  solely  to  magistrates  in  England,  "it  imparted  the 

1  See  Sewall  to  Increase  Mather,  July  24,  1688,  ibid.,  4th  Series,  viii.  517; 
for  Sewall's  petition,  ibid.,  5th  Series,  v.  220-221. 

2  "Andros    Records,"    American    Antiquarian    Society,    Proceedings,    New 
Series,  xiii.  487. 

3  In  a  note  in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  i.  68, 
the  legality  of  Andres's  proceedings  is  argued.     It  would  seem  that  he  could 
have  taken  no  other  course,  a  fact  recognized  by  Dudley,  Sewall,  Stoughton, 
and  some  of  the  leading  men  in  the  colony;  but  the  technical  legality  of  his 
conduct  does  not  diminish  the  selfishness  of  Randolph  or  the  injustice  done  to 
the  colonists.     Andros  and  Dudley  were  trying  to  cany  out  the  policy  of  Eng- 
land, which  showed  a  "tendency  to  apply  principles  of  law  and  methods  of 
legal  procedure  which  had  been  developed  in  England  to  its  colonies,  with  a 
sublime  disregard  of  the  wishes  of  the  colonists  and  of  conditions  which  neces- 
sarily prevail  in  frontier  settlements."  —  Channing,    History  of  the   United 
States,  ii.  184. 


52  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

needed  impulse  to  colonial  revolt  in  that  it  gave  or  seemed 
to  give  a  quasi-legal  sanction  to  the  rising."1  There  was  a 
general  uprising  in  Boston.  Andros,  Randolph,  and  Captain 
George  of  the  frigate  Rose  were  seized  and  imprisoned,  and 
the  former  government,  with  Bradstreet  as  governor,  was 
reestablished. 

Dudley  was,  in  the  words  of  Danforth,  "in  a  peculiar 
manner  the  object  of  the  people's  displeasure."2  He  was 
returning  from  holding  court  on  Long  Island  when  he  was 
seized,  brought  to  Boston,  and  confined  in  jail.  He  was  ill 
at  the  time,  and  was  therefore  released  on  a  bond  for  a  thou- 
sand pounds  given  by  Shrimpton,  Paige,  and  Hutchinson  on 
condition  that  he  be  "confined  to  his  house  at  Roxbury  till 
further  Ordr  not  to  go  out  of  said  house  or  the  precints  of  his 
yard  .  .  .  except  to  the  public  worship  of  God  on  the  Sab- 
bath."3 About  midnight,  however,  a  mob  broke  into  his 
house  and  carried  him  back  to  the  jail.  The  keeper,  fearing 
that  this  high-handed  act  would  involve  him  in  difficulties,  re- 
fused to  receive  him  without  a  warrant  from  the  magistrates. 
Unable  to  obtain  this,  the  mob  took  him  to  the  house  of  his 
niece,  Mrs.  Paige,  where  he  was  confined.  Again  his  enemies 
came  to  search  for  him,  but,  though  wrecking  the  house,  failed 
to  find  him.4  His  brother-in-law,  Bradstreet,  on  whom  the 
preservation  of  the  peace  devolved,  then  wrote  to  him :  — 

"ST.  The  tumult  in  the  town  is  So  Great  &  so  Suddene  & 
no  Reason  will  be  heard  or  regarded,  that  I  am  necessitated 
earnestly  to  entrent  you  for  ye  Safety  of  yr  Selfe  &  family 

1  Charming,  History  of  the  United  States,  ii.  199. 

J  Danforth  to  Increase  Mather,  quoted  in  Hutchinson 's  History  of  Massa- 
chusetts, i.  348,  note. 

3  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  5,  No.  21,  Hi. 

4  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  America  and  West  Indies,  1689-1692,  No.  310. 


THE  RULE  OF  ANDROS  53 

&  well  fare  of  ye  whole  country  to  yield  quietly  to  yr  present 
stresse  which  I  hope  you  will  never  repent, 
have  respect  I  pray  to  Your  cordiall  friende 

the  glory  of  Code  the  humble  Serv* 

welfare  of  this  people.  S.  Bradstreet."  l 

Dudley,  perhaps  willing  to  secure  his  personal  safety,  com- 
plied with  the  request  and  was  lodged  in  jail,  where  he  re- 
mained for  ten  months,  until  the  king  ordered  his  release 
and  transportation  to  England. 

When  he  arrived  in  London,  he  and  his  fellow-prisoners 
were  confronted  with  a  list  of  charges  prepared  by  a  committee 
of  seven  of  the  leading  colonists.2  Dudley  was  accused  of 
having  committed  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  nineteen 
illegal  acts,  the  most  frequent  charge  being  that  of  proceeding 
illegally  in  the  administration  of  justice.  Associated  with 
this  charge  was  the  exaction  of  excessive  fines  and  fees.  The 
first  accusation  may  be  easily  dismissed;  for,  granting  the 
legality  of  the  commission  of  Andros,  nothing  illegal  can  be 
attributed  to  Dudley  in  the  actions  alleged.  But  though  there 
was  no  illegality  there  was  sufficient  arbitrariness  to  account 
for  the  hatred  of  the  people ;  and  it  is  significant  that  in  his 
letter  of  defence,  written  while  he  was  still  in  prison,  to  Cotton 
Mather,  Dudley  makes  no  apology  for  his  conduct  on  the 
bench.3  In  this  letter,  however,  he  denies  that  he  was  respon- 
sible for  excessive  fees,  saying  that  he  never  gave  a  warrant 
for  any,  and  that  all  were  fixed  by  the  Council.  Here  the 
records  give  absolute  evidence  to  the  contrary ;  for  Dudley  was 
one  of  a  committee  of  five  to  settle  the  fees,  and  it  is  prob- 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  5,  No.  21,  iv. 

*  Andros  Tracts,  i.  149-173. 

*  June  5,  1689,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections  6th  Series,  iii. 
501. 


54  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

able  that  his  influence  as  chief  justice  had  great  weight.  He 
was,  moreover,  on  the  committees  that  settled  and  approved 
the  fees  granted  to  Randolph.  Even  if  he  were  personally 
innocent,  therefore,  he  was  morally  responsible  for  much  of 
the  system. 

The  next  group  of  charges  refer  to  his  presidency,  the  most 
important  being  that  he  accepted  an  illegal  commission.  How 
much  weight  this  charge  would  have  with  the  Lords  of  Trade, 
who  themselves  drew  up  the  commission,  may  well  be  doubted ; 
and  Dudley  shrewdly  answers  that  it  was  his  duty  to  accept 
it,  and  that  this  was  the  opinion  of  several  of  the  important 
people  of  the  colony,  since  they  took  office  with  him,  —  an 
evident  hit  at  Winthrop,  who  helped  prepare  the  charges. 

He  is  next  accused  of  having  shown  a  malicious  spirit  in  his 
letters  before  the  loss  of  the  charter,  and  to  have  plotted  for 
its  destruction.  There  is,  however,  no  evidence  that  he 
plotted  for  the  destruction  of  the  charter  or  sought  office  be- 
fore the  orders  for  the  quo  warranto  were  issued.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  expressly  denies  this  charge,  and  it  has  been 
shown  from  hostile  evidence  that  he  was  working  for  the 
interests  of  Massachusetts  until  the  case  became  hopeless. 
Even  if  the  charge  could  have  been  substantiated,  Dudley's 
willingness  to  accept  office  and  to  make  effective  the  policy  of 
the  committee  would  have  been  a  recommendation  in  its 
eyes ;  but  the  fact  remained  that  the  colonists  could  not  for- 
give him  for  gaining  advancement  through  their  misfortunes. 

Several  minor  complaints  were  made  against  him  for  acts 
committed  during  his  administration.  Some  of  these  have 
been  mentioned  and  discussed ;  but  the  charge  most  empha- 
sized was  that  he  cheated  the  crown  out  of  its  just  dues  by 
false  accounts.  The  only  evidence  offered  for  this  accusation 
were  the  letters  of  Randolph  already  quoted ;  but  these  were 


THE  RULE  OF  ANDROS  55 

very  dangerous  weapons,  for  in  the  first  place,  they  show 
that  Randolph  did  not  get  as  much  plunder  as  he  expected, 
and  are  therefore  to  Dudley's  credit,  and,  secondly,  Randolph 
himself  was  accused  of  being  the  accomplice  of  Dudley,  and 
hence  his  testimony  is  to  be  discredited. 

Dudley's  defence  to  the  king  was  brief  and  dignified.1  He 
called  attention  to  his  fifteen  years  of  service  in  the  govern- 
ment, reminded  the  Committee  how  he  had  appeared  before 
it  as  agent  for  the  colony,  and  briefly  spoke  of  his  service  as 
president  of  the  temporary  council.  He  declared  that  both  as 
judge  and  as  councillor,  under  the  Andros  government,  "he 
faithfully  to  his  understanding  served  the  Crowne  &  the  true 
interest  of  those  Plantations  .  .  .  and  according  to  his  best 
skill  gave  Judgement  in  matters  of  Law  according  to  the  Lawes 
and  Statutes  of  the  Realm  of  England  and  the  peculiar  Laws  of 
that  Government."  He  then  described  his  experience  during 
the  revolution,  and  submitted  his  case  to  the  Lords  of  Trade. 
This  defence  was  presented  to  the  Committee  April  24,  1690; 
but,  as  no  person  appeared  for  the  colony  to  sign  and  assume 
the  responsibility  for  the  charges  against  Dudley  and  his 
fellow-prisoners,  the  king  ordered  their  discharge.2 

It  is  not  probable  that,  even  if  the  colony  had  been  able  to 
push  the  charges  farther,  the  action  of  the  king  and  committee 
would  have  been  different.  Dudley  and  Andros  may  have 
been  unwise,  certainly  they  were  overbearing  and  tact- 
less; but  in  their  attempt  to  make  effective  the  will  of  the 
English  government,  and  in  their  execution  of  the  decrees  of 
the  courts  and  the  commands  of  the  Lords  of  Trade,  it  would 
have  been  difficult  for  the  English  authorities  to  find  anything 
illegal.  Indeed,  it  was  their  zeal  to  carry  out  their  instructions 
that  had  rendered  them  so  unpopular  and  that  led  the  colonists 

1  Andros  Tracts,  ii.  182.  *  Ibid.  173,  et  seq. 


56  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH   DUDLEY 

to  make  charges  so  impossible  of  proof.  Dudley,  moreover, 
was  too  valuable  an  instrument  for  the  Lords  of  Trade  to  lose. 
He  had  shown  his  readiness  to  accept  their  policy  while  agent 
for  Massachusetts;  he  had  served  creditably  as  president  of 
the  temporary  council  after  the  dissolution  of  the  Company; 
and  on  Andres's  arrival  he  had  surrendered  his  office  and  taken 
the  place  of  chief  justice,  where  he  had  done  much  to  make 
the  administration  an  immediate  success.  But  it  was  the  very 
success  of  his  policy  which  showed  the  colonists  their  true 
position  and  led  to  the  overthrow  of  the  government.  It  has 
been  suggested  that  Dudley  did  all  in  his  power  to  render  the 
administration  hateful,  hoping  that  by  its  fall  he  might  gain 
some  advantage.  From  a  study  of  his  later  career  this  does 
not  seem  probable.  As  his  whole  life  shows,  Dudley  was  a 
consistent  adherent  to  the  power  of  the  crown  and  to  its  pre- 
rogatives, whether  exercised  directly  or  by  deputy.  As  presi- 
dent, he  asserted  his  own  rights,  and  as  chief  justice  he  was 
equally  careful  of  the  prerogatives  of  Andros.  He  tried  con- 
sistently to  carry  out  his  instructions,  cost  what  it  might.  It 
was  for  this  latter  characteristic  that  he  was  sought  as  an 
administrator  both  in  England  and  in  the  colonies ;  but  this 
trait,  together  with  his  failings  of  temper,  made  him  the  most 
unpopular  man  in  the  Andros  administration.  Though  he 
was  acquitted  and  rewarded  by  the  king,  Dudley's  record  fol- 
lowed him  throughout  his  life  and  made  him  the  most  hated 
man  in  New  England ;  and  because  of  this  his  later  adminis- 
tration as  governor  of  Massachusetts  was  rendered  exceedingly 
difficult. 


CHAPTER   IV 
SCHEMING  FOR  OFFICE 

JOSEPH  DUDLEY  MEMBER  OF  THE  COUNCIL  FOR  NEW  YORK, 
DEPUTY-GOVERNOR  OF  THE  ISLE  OF  WIGHT,  MEMBER 

OF  PARLIAMENT 

r 
1689-1702 

ALTHOUGH  the  charges  against  Dudley  were  dismissed,  his 
position  in  England  was  far  from  enviable.  Not  only  had  he 
apparently  lost  the  influence  of  his  friends  in  Massachusetts, 
but  he  was  so  detested  in  that  colony  that  he  might  expect 
its  enmity  to  continue  to  pursue  him.  He  was  in  the  position 
of  a  discharged  prisoner  against  whom  the  indictment  has 
failed  for  want  of  evidence.  It  is  true  that  he  was  released ; 
but  he  was  in  London  separated  from  his  friends  and  relatives, 
on  whose  assistance  he  might  count,  and  jealously  watched  by 
the  Massachusetts  agents,  one  of  whom  was  Elisha  Cooke,  his 
bitter  enemy.  Although  his  conduct  might  escape  condemna- 
tion, it  was  evident  that  William  III  would  be  unwilling  to 
offend  the  colonists,  just  as  his  struggle  with  France  was  begin- 
ning, by  rewarding  a  fallen  official  of  James  II. 

But  Dudley  had  one  friend  at  this  crisis  who  now  aided  him. 
William  Blathwayt  was  a  power  in  colonial  affairs.  Through 
all  the  changes  of  sovereigns,  shif  tings  of  committees,  and  altera- 
tions in  the  personal  composition  of  the  board,  Blathwayt, 
as  one  of  the  Lords  of  Trade  and  as  clerk  of  the  Privy  Council, 
contrived  to  remain  a  permanent  element  in  the  direction  of 

57 


58  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

colonial  affairs.  He  was  probably  better  versed  in  the  details 
of  colonial  administration  than  any  one  else  in  England,  and 
by  his  superior  knowledge  was  doubtless  often  able  to  lead  the 
Lords  to  his  point  of  view.  Needy  office-seekers,  discontented 
or  discredited  officials,  anxious  promoters  of  colonial  schemes, 
sought  his  aid  and  influence  in  many  ways,  some  of  which 
were  not  above  suspicion.  On  his  first  voyage  to  England, 
Dudley  had  carried  a  letter  to  Blathwayt,  and  from  that  time 
had  kept  up  his  interest  by  letters,  visits,  presents,  and  pos- 
sibly bribes.  Blathwayt,  moreover,  knew  the  worst  about 
Dudley,  for  Randolph  tried  to  poison  his  mind  against  him; 
but  so  ready  had  Dudley  been  to  carry  out  the  policy  of  the 
Committee  that  Blathwayt  stood  his  sponsor  in  this  critical 
period. 

It  is  hard  to  determine  what  other  friends  Dudley  had  in 
England  at  this  time,  but  it  is  known  that  a  certain  Dr.  Daniel 
Cox  was  one  of  them.  This  was  not  the  first  instance  of  their 
cooperation.  Cox  was  one  of  the  proprietors  of  West  New 
Jersey,  and  was  evidently  ready  to  advance  his  fortune  in 
other  colonies  as  well;  for  he,  Stoughton,  and  Dudley  had 
obtained  a  tidy  grant  of  eight  square  miles  in  the  heart  of 
Massachusetts.1  Cox  now  came  to  Dudley's  assistance,  and 
by  magnifying  his  abilities  materially  improved  his  chances 
for  obtaining  some  post  in  the  colonies. 

An  office  in  Massachusetts  at  this  crisis  was  out  of  the  ques- 
tion, but  one  was  obtained  for  Dudley  in  New  York.  How 
he  became  acquainted  with  Sloughter,  the  newly-appointed 
governor  of  that  province,  is  not  known ;  but  on  September 
23,  1690,  Sloughter  wrote  to  Blathwayt  that  he  desired  Dudley 
to  be  the  chief  of  his  Council,  since  he  knew  him  "  to  be  not 

1  "Andros  Records,"  American  Antiquarian  Society,  Proceedings,  New  Series, 
xiii.  487,  December  19,  1687. 


SCHEMING  FOR  OFFICE  59 

onely  of  exquisite  pts  but  also  experienced  in  ye  affairs  of  that 
countrie." *  This  position  Dudley  accepted,  and  before  sailing 
wrote  to  Blathwayt  thanking  him  for  the  favors  he  had  shown 
and  significantly  adding,  "I  hope  the  settlement  of  N.  Engd 
will  at  length  come  under  consideration  wherein  if  I  may  be 
remembered  I  shall  attribute  it  to  your  kindness."1  Once 
again  before  leaving  England,  Dudley  expressed  to  Blath- 
wayt his  willingness  to  serve  New  England.  The  occasion 
for  this  letter  was  the  fact  that  Cox  had  offered  Dudley  the 
position  of  deputy-governor  of  West  New  Jersey,  and  had 
sent  a  letter  urging  the  king  to  confirm  the  appointment.3 
Dudley  put  himself  and  his  fortunes  in  Blathwayt's  hands 
and  offered  to  resign  "that  &  any  other  province  if  I  may  be 
thought  worthy  &  capable  of  any  post  in  the  settlem*  of  my 
own  country." 4  It  is  thus  evident  that  he  hoped  to  return 
to  Massachusetts  in  some  official  capacity,  and  regarded  the 
position  hi  New  York  as  a  temporary  affair. 

Although  Dudley  might  regard  the  position  of  chief  of  the 
Council  of  New  York  as  a  mere  stepping-stone  to  some  post 
in  Massachusetts,  he  displayed  the  same  energy  in  his  new 
field  that  he  had  shown  at  home.  He  exercised  the  same 
diligence  in  attendance  on  council  meetings ;  during  his  resi- 
dence of  a  little  over  a  year  hi  New  York,  he  was  absent  from 
but  five  of  the  thirty  meetings  that  were  held.5  The  skill  that 

1  British  Slate  Papers,  America  and  West  Indies  (Ms.),  578,  No.  161. 
*  Ibid.  No.  1 80. 

3  There  is  a  copy  of  a  commission  for  Dudley  as  deputy-governor  of  West 
New  Jersey  in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Proceedings,  1869-1870,  p.  204. 

4  Dudley  to  Blathwayt,  November  20,  1690,  British  State  Papers,  America 
and  West  Indies  (Ms.),  578,  No.  186. 

5  Journal  of  the  Legislative  Council  of  New  York,  i.  1-15.     According  to  Ran- 
dolph, Dudley's  activities  were  not  confined  to  purely  administrative  affairs; 
for  he  accuses  "Joseph  the  Jew  (for  so  now  Mr  Dudley  is  called)"  of  persuad- 
ing Governor  Sloughter  to  erect  a  court  of  admiralty,  although  he  had  no  com- 


60  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

he  had  shown  in  dealing  with  Indians  hi  Massachusetts  was 
recognized  hi  New  York,  and  he  was  appointed  one  of  the 
Indian  Commissioners; l  and  he  was  also  sent  as  a  special  agent 
to  urge  the  governments  of  New  England  to  aid  New  York 
with  money  and  men.2  He  must  have  been  possessed  of 
some  considerable  property  at  this  time,  for  he  advanced  over 
a  thousand  pounds  to  Sloughter  to  pay  the  troops  that  came 
from  England.3  He  was  so  useful  and  effective  that  Fletcher, 
the  successor  of  Sloughter,  was  directed  to  make  him  the  first 
of  his  Council ; 4  but  his  activity  hi  enforcing  the  prerogatives 
of  the  government  and  his  own  failings  of  temper  made  him, 
as  was  reported  to  the  Lords  of  Trade,  "very  unacceptable  to 
the  people." 5 

Dudley's  unpopularity  in  New  York  was,  as  in  Massachu- 
setts, increased  by  his  conduct  on  the  bench.  In  New  York, 
his  stumbling-block  was  the  trial  of  Leisler.  Like  Massachu- 
setts, New  York  had  an  uprising,  the  counterpart  of  the  revo- 
lution hi  England ;  but  unlike  Massachusetts  she  could  count 
on  no  unanimity  of  feeling  among  her  colonists.  Aside  from 
the  racial  differences  which  separated  the  English  from  the 
Dutch,  there  was  a  division  over  the  question  of  religion. 
Dongan,  the  predecessor  of  Andros,  was  a  Roman  Catholic, 
and  some  of  the  important  posts  hi  the  colony  were  held  by 
men  of  that  religion;  while  Nicholson,  the  deputy-governor, 
had  shown  himself  not  unwilling  to  comply  with  the  desires 

mission  from  the  admiralty,  and  of  obtaining  the  appointment  of  one  of  his 
creatures,  with  whom  Dudley  shared  the  fees  and  fines  to  the  hurt  of  the  revenue 
of  the  crown.  But  "the  People,"  he  adds,  "Were  so  highly  Incensed  ag*  him. 
.  .  .  Upon  the  Crocadiles  Tears  Appeased  the  Rabble  else  they  had  soon 
Distroyed  his  judge  ship"  (Randolph  to  Blathwayt,  August  16,  1692,  Goodrick, 
Edward  Randolph,  404-405). 

1  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  iii.  771. 

*  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  America  and  West  Indies,  1680-1692,  No.  1556. 

*  Ibid.  No.  1847.  *Ibid.  No.  2131.  *  Ibid.  No.  2130. 


SCHEMING  FOR  OFFICE  61 

of  James  II.  Moreover,  to  many  of  the  rich  merchants  in 
New  York  the  question  of  religion  was  a  subordinate  one, 
and  it  was  freely  asserted  that  there  was  a  Catholic  party 
ready  to  follow  the  lead  of  Nicholson  or  Dongan,  who  were 
believed  to  be  in  alliance  with  the  French.  The  opposition, 
though  greatly  outnumbering  the  Catholics,  was  by  no  means 
united.  Save  for  the  few  years  between  1683  and  1686,  when 
the  experiment  of  an  elected  assembly  was  tried,  New  York 
was  governed  by  an  appointed  council.  The  system  of  Andros 
was  therefore  not  new;  and  the  resident  members  of  his 
Council,  Van  Cortlandt,  Phillipse,  and  Bayard,  though  rich 
and  prominent  in  the  colony,  were  distrusted  and  envied  by  the 
people,  who  desired  a  share  in  the  government.  Without 
doubt  the  English  settlers  on  Long  Island  formed  a  majority 
of  this  party,  but  there  were  merchants  in  the  city  who  keenly 
felt  their  exclusion  from  the  social  and  official  aristocracy  of 
the  colony;  chief  among  these  was  Jacob  Leisler. 

The  uprising  in  New  York  followed  hard  upon  that  in  Massa- 
chusetts. The  same  rumors  of  Catholic  and  French  alliance 
and  invasion  were  utilized  to  rouse  excitement;  and  the 
obvious  weakness  of  the  fortifications  of  the  city  and  the 
danger  of  the  colony  brought  all  the  Protestant  factions  to 
act  in  cooperation  for  the  moment.  But  Nicholson  was  not 
the  man  to  preserve  this  temporary  harmony.  Losing  his 
temper  over  some  slight  act  of  insubordination,  he  soon  found 
that  the  city  militia  was  beyond  his  control  and  in  open 
mutiny.  Leisler  put  himself  at  the  head  of  the  mutineers  and 
seized  the  fort.  Nicholson,  fearing  for  his  safety,  deserted  his 
post  and  soon  went  to  England;  Van  Cortlandt, Bayard, and 
the  other  councillors  were  imprisoned  or  forced  to  flee,  and 
Leisler  became  practically  dictator.  His  rule,  though  revo- 
lutionary in  its  origin,  was  generally  accepted  throughout  the 


62  TEE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

province,  and  received,  in  his  own  eyes  at  least,  some  legal 
authority  by  the  receipt  of  a  letter  from  the  king,  addressed 
"to  such  as  for  the  time  being  take  Care  for  the  preserving  the 
peace  and  administering  the  Laws  in  our  Said  Province  of  New 
York." 1  Ignoring  the  presence  of  the  members  of  Andres's 
Council,  who  were  legally  charged  with  the  preservation  of 
the  peace,  but  who  had  been  deprived  of  all  power,  Leisler 
assumed  that  his  government  was  recognized  by  the  king. 

The  English  authorities,  however,  to  whom  both  Leisler 
and  Nicholson  had  appealed,  had  no  intention  of  allowing  the 
revolutionary  government  to  become  permanently  established. 
On  January  4,  1690,  a  commission  and  set  of  instructions  were 
issued  to  Colonel  Henry  Sloughter,  in  which  a  Council  was 
named  containing  none  of  the  names  of  the  revolutionists, 
but  including  Van  Cortlandt  and  Bayard,  the  most  bitter 
opponents  of  Leisler.2  Had  Sloughter  himself  come  directly 
to  New  York  and  presented  his  commission,  Leisler  doubtless 
would  have  at  once  surrendered ;  but,  unfortunately,  before 
he  arrived  his  deputy,  Ingoldsby,  reached  New  York,  and 
Dudley  came  upon  the  scene.  Ingoldsby  demanded  the 
surrender  of  the  fort,  but  could  show  only  Sloughter's  deputa- 
tion to  him,  as  his  authority.  This  Leisler  was  perhaps 
correct  in  refusing  to  recognize.  In  the  strained  relations 
which  followed  it  was  difficult  to  keep  peace;  protests  and 
counter-protests  were  issued  by  Leisler  and  the  newly-appointed 
Council  under  Dudley,  and  finally,  on  March  17,  Leisler  opened 
fire  and  killed  two  of  the  king's  soldiers.  Even  when  Slough- 
ter arrived,  Leisler  attempted  to  make  terms  for  himself,  but 
finally  submitted  and  was  detained  as  a  prisoner. 

Responding  to  the  demands  of  Leisler's  personal  enemies, 

1  British  State  Papers,  America  and  West  Indies  (Ms.),  578,  No.  360. 
1  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  iii.  623  et  seq.,  685  et  seq. 


SCHEMING  FOR  OFFICE  63 

Sloughter  constituted  a  special  Court  and  commissioned  ten 
men  "of  approved  integrity  and  loyalty  and  personally  un- 
concerned in  the  late  troubles."  l  Joseph  Dudley,  who  had 
been  acting  as  president  of  the  Council  and  was  Ingoldsby's 
adviser  before  the  arrival  of  Sloughter,  was  chief  justice. 
Leisler  and  his  associates  were  speedily  indicted  and  brought 
before  this  court  for  trial.  "Refusing  to  hold  up  his  hand," 
Leisler  read  "a  small  paper  offering  that  for-as-much  he  had 
been  in  power  here  he  ought  not  to  plead  till  such  power  was  de- 
termined," thus  claiming  that  the  court  had  no  jurisdiction  since 
his  acts  were  authorized  by  the  letter  of  the  king.  The  court 
decided  that  this  amounted  to  no  plea,  but  postponed  pro- 
ceedings to  consult  with  the  Council.  On  April  i  Leisler  was 
again  brought  before  the  court,  and  Dudley  advised  him  to 
plead;  but  he  continued  "his  general  talk  refusing  to  plead 
.  .  .  [until]  he  was  ordered  to  be  tyed  up  and  putt  in  irons."2 
On  April  15,  he  was  once  again  brought  before  the  court ;  but 
he  still  remained  obstinate,  and  on  April  17  he  was  sentenced 
to  death  for  murder  and  high  treason.  On  the  advice  of  the 
judges,  Sloughter  suspended  the  sentence  until  special  orders 
should  be  received  from  England;  but  party  feeling  was 
so  strong  that  the  governor,  influenced  by  his  Council,  at 
length  gave  way,  and  Leisler  and  his  son-in-law  were  executed 
and  their  estates  confiscated. 

In  the  trial,  Dudley  had  taken  a  leading  part.  He  was 
probably  intensely  biased  against  Leisler,  and  displayed  many 
of  his  unpleasant  traits  in  his  conduct  of  the  case.  Although 
as  a  judge  he  had  advised  Sloughter  to  suspend  sentence  until 
the  king's  pleasure  should  be  known,  yet  as  a  member  of  the 
Council  he  apparently  joined  with  the  others  in  urging  the 
governor  to  carry  out  the  sentence  at  once.  His  conduct  was 
1  Ibid.  759.  *  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  York  (Ms.),  iv.  4. 


64  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

unwise,  but  his  decision  was  legal  and  was  confirmed  by  the 
king.1  Nevertheless,  in  the  exercise  of  his  duty,  he  had 
offended  many  of  his  countrymen  and  given  his  enemies  an- 
other point  to  urge  against  him  in  his  later  career. 

Sometime  in  1692  Dudley  left  New  York  and  returned  to 
New  England,  where  he  lived  quietly  at  Roxbury.  Although 
Governor  Fletcher  was  directed  to  make  Dudley  first  of  his 
Council,  he  suspended  him  for  non-residence,2  but  still  con- 
sulted him  by  letter.  When  Dudley  returned  to  New  Eng- 
land he  found  Massachusetts  under  the  new  charter,  with 
Sir  William  Phips  the  newly-appointed  royal  governor,  and 
Stoughton,  Dudley's  friend  and  former  colleague,  lieutenant- 
governor.  The  new  government  was  in  the  midst  of  diffi- 
culties. The  frenzy  of  the  witchcraft  persecution  was  at  its 
height,  and  Stoughton  was  taking  a  leading  part  in  the  prose- 
cution. War  was  forcing  even  heavier  taxes  than  Andros 
or  Dudley  had  levied,  and  the  futile  expedition  against  Quebec 
had  so  strained  the  credit  of  the  colony,  that  it  had  been  neces- 


1  The  documents  concerning  the  Leisler  trial  and  the  reversal  of  the  attainder 
are  given  in  brief  form  in  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  America  and  West  Indies, 
1680-1692,  1692-1697 ;  they  are  printed  in  full  in  New  York  Colonial  Docu- 
ments, vols.  iii.-iv.,  and  in  New  York  Historical  Society,  Collections,  Publica- 
tion Fund  Series,  1868.  The  trial  is  discussed  by  Chandler,  Criminal  Trials, 
i.  262 ;  and  more  fully  by  Chalmers,  in  Continuation  of  the  Political  Annals  of 
the  Present  United  Colonies  (in  New  York  Historical  Society,  Collections,  Pub- 
lication Fund  Series,  1868,  p.  72),  where  he  says  :  "Of  the  fairness  of  their  trial, 
the  nature  of  their  crime,  or  the  justness  of  their  sentence  no  doubt  can  be 
reasonably  entertained;  since  they  were  not  indicted  for  the  part  they  had 
acted  in  the  revolution  or  in  the  subsequent  violences,  but  merely  for  holding 
a  fortress  by  arms  against  the  legal  governor,  which  in  judgment  of  law  was 
levying  war  against  the  King.  But  the  prudence  of  the  measure  may  be  justly 
questioned,  because  ill-timed  examples  only  weaken  the  power  which  they  are 
meant  to  support.  William  declared  in  favour  of  the  validity  of  the  judge- 
ment ;  yet  ordered  their  estates  to  be  returned  to  their  children,  because  the 
services  of  the  fathers  required  some  attention  to  the  sons." 

1  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  America  and  West  Indies,  1689-1692,  No.  2514. 


SCHEMING  FOR  OFFICE  65 

sary  to  resort  to  paper  money.  Moreover,  the  new  governor's 
irascibility  was  offending  some  of  the  officials  and  stirring  up 
opposition  among  the  representatives.  Dudley  saw  in  these 
conditions  a  possibility  for  his  future  advantage.  He  took 
care  to  renew  his  influence  over  Stoughton,  and  regained  the 
confidence  of  some  of  his  friends.  He  utilized  his  wide  family 
connection  among  the  leaders  of  the  colony,  and  by  his  letters 
to  Fletcher  fomented  the  trouble  between  him  and  the  hot- 
tempered  governor  of  Massachusetts.1  To  prosecute  his 
plans  more  effectively  he  decided  to  go  to  England,  and  some- 
time before  February  he  was  in  London.2 

Dudley's  life  in  the  next  nine  years  presented  a  strange  con- 
trast to  the  lives  of  his  fellow-colonists,  and  did  much  to 
remove  whatever  provincialism  remained  in  his  character. 
This  was  his  third  visit  to  London,  and  he  found  many  friends. 
Blathwayt  was  still  clerk  of  the  Privy  Council  and  ready  to 
help  him.  He  also  gained  a  new  patron  in  the  person  of  Lord 
Cutts,  who  had  led  a  regiment  of  the  line  at  the  battle  of  the 
Boyne  and  there  won  the  reputation  of  being  "the  bravest  of 
the  brave,"  and  secured  the  friendship  of  the  king.  About 

1  British  State  Papers,  America  and  West  Indies  (Ms.),  561,  Nos.  18,  iii.     Ac- 
cording to  Randolph's  report  to  Blathwayt,  March  14,  1692-1693,  the  condi- 
tion of  the  colonies  was  very  critical  and  there  was  need  for  the  presence  of 
English  officials.     "Carolin,"  he  wrote,  "has  a  Gonr  at  Ashley  River,  yet  is 
wholy  vnsetled  Coll :  .  .  .  Maryland  quiet  by  force  for  ye  present.  .  .  .     The 
2  Jersyes  haue  a  Mock  Com*  vnder  Mr.  Hamilton.  .  .  .     Pensilvania  is  much 
like  it.     New  york  people   much   dissatisfied  to  haue  all  places  filld  vp  with 
Irish.  .  .  .     New  England  is  worse  than  Bedleham.     Euery  place  full  of  Horror 
&  Confusion.     Connecticott  ouer  run  with  fraud  &  Hypocrisy.     Road  Island 
with  folly  &  quakarisme.   N :  plymouth  as  poore  as  a  Church  mouse.     Boston 
ouer  spred  with  fantasticall  delusions.     Horrid  Murthers  Cruell  slavery  &  op- 
pression Rampant :  the  poeple  are  become  more  stupid  then  their  Gonr :  more 
arbitrary  then  the  members  of  their  Councill  &  more  inflexible  then  their  prag- 
matticall  Teachers. "  —  Goodrick,  Edward  Randolph,  433-434. 

2  Letter  of  Elisha  Hutchinson,  February  i,  1693,  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  Proceedings,  1835-1855,  pp.  296-297. 


66  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

the  time  Dudley  arrived  in  London,  Cutts  was  appointed 
governor  of  the  Isle  of  Wight,  and  he  was  induced  to  make 
Dudley  his  deputy.  In  addition  to  these  political  and  mili- 
tary friends  who  were  influential  in  Parliament  and  useful 
about  the  court,  Dudley  conformed  to  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land and  was  ready  to  utilize  his  churchmanship  with  the 
bishops  in  the  Privy  Council  who  took  an  interest  in  colonial 
affairs. 

His  object  was  to  replace  Sir  William  Phips  and  thus  to 
justify  himself  in  the  eyes  of  his  countrymen.  He  was  not 
at  all  backward  in  proclaiming  his  purpose,  and  told  Sir  Henry 
Ashurst,  one  of  the  agents  for  Massachusetts,  "that  W. 
S[toughton]  Esq.,  and  most  of  the  people  are  for  him  to  be 
Gfovernorj."  l  Through  his  friends  in  Massachusetts  he  was 
kept  informed  of  the  increasing  dissatisfaction  with  the 
governor.2  Because  of  this  discontent,  Sir  William  Phips  was 

1  Letter  of  Elisha  Hutchinson,  February  i,  1693,  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  Proceedings,  1835-1855,  pp.  296-297. 

2  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  7,  No.  31.     This  is  an  ab- 
stract of  a  letter  from  Nathaniel  Byfield  to  Joseph  Dudley,  given  by  Dudley 
to  the  Board  of  Trade.     After  referring  to  Phips's  action  in  negativing  some 
of  the  councillors,  the  letter  continues :    "  Now  if  the  making  of  Such  a  Law 
(wc    we  hope  you  have  care  to  have  negatived)  and  refusing  to  give  persons 
their  oaths  .  .  .  thereby  forming  an  Assembly  to  his  own  mind  are  not  things 
that  will  be  borne  testemony  against  Farewell  all  that  is  good  and  I  will  find 
Some  other  place  to  Live  in.  ...     In  the  meantime  you  may  easily  guess 
without  any  imputation  of  witchcraft  if  it  be  right,  who  dus  [does]  and  will 
disserve  you  all  he  can  Lett  his  pretences  be  what  they  will  it  is  suggested  by 
(you  may  easily  know  who)  to  our  good  honest  Councillors  and  Countrymen ; 
that  you  Lost  yourself  very  much  by  Saying  before  the  Lords  in  a  public  hear- 
ing that  Sr  VV  had  not  done  any  good  thing  since  he  was  Governor  and  that 
you  were  taken  up  severely  .  .  .  and  that  you  had  nothing  to  say  in  answer. 
That  you  are  Conformed  and  taken  ye  Sacriment  according  to  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land or  could  not  have  yl  place  under  my  Lord  Cutts,  &c."     After  expressing 
a  desire  to  see  Dudley  the  letter  concludes,  "But  truely  it  is  not  adviseable  that 
you  Come  till  you  are  well  equipt  &  then  ye  Sooner  ye  Better,  I  Looke  upon  ye 
hazzards  of  this  Country  to  be  greater  now  then  ever  &  without  a  Generall 
Gouer,  if  ye  warrs  hold  we  shall  be  all  Ruined.  .  .  ." 


SCHEMING  FOR  OFFICE  67 

recalled  to  England  to  defend  himself.  When  he  reached 
London,  Dudley  succeeded  in  having  him  arrested  in  an  action 
for  £20,000 ; *  and  before  Phips  could  defend  himself  against 
both  his  political  and  his  private  enemies,  he  died,  on  February 
18,  1695. 

Dudley  believed  that  he  would  be  appointed  the  successor 
of  Phips,  and  to  this  end  used  all  the  influence  at  his  command. 
His  patrons  Blathwayt  and  Lord  Cutts  worked  zealously  for 
him,  the  latter  winning  over  the  Earl  of  Portland.2  The 
Duke  of  Leeds  and  Lord  Sidney  were  also  pledged  to  his 
support,  and  common  report  had  it  that  "Capt.  Dudley  stands 
fairest  to  succeed  sir  W.  Phipps."  3 

The  agents  for  Massachusetts,  however,  adopted  a  shrewd 
method  to  thwart  Dudley's  ambition.  The  son  of  Leisler  was 
in  England  endeavoring  to  get  the  attainder  against  his  father 
reversed  in  order  that  he  might  inherit  his  estate.  Up  to  this 
time  he  seems  to  have  had  little  success ;  but  now  Sir  Henry 
Ashurst  laid  the  matter  before  the  king,  and  the  other  Massa- 
chusetts agent,  Constantine  Phipps,  drew  up  the  necessary 
bill  for  the  reversal  of  the  attainder.4  It  passed  the  House 
of  Lords  with  little  alteration,  but  in  the  Commons  it  encoun- 
tered difficulties.  A  special  committee  was  appointed,  hear- 
ings were  held,  and  on  April  24  Dudley  testified  as  to  his 
share  in  the  trial.  This  was  what  his  opponents  desired ;  and 
it  had  an  unfortunate  effect  upon  Dudley,  for  it  drew  atten- 
tion to  his  part  in  proceedings  which  were  popularly  con- 
demned. Still,  his  interest  was  strong  enough  to  postpone  the 

1  Ashurst  to  Mather,  May  5,  1695,  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  ii. 
82  note. 

*Ibid. 

*  Luttrell,  Brief  Historical  Relation  of  State  Affairs,  iii.  447. 

4  Phipps  to  Increase  Mather,  May  5,  1695,  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massa- 
chusetts, ii.  82-83  note. 


68  THE   PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH   DUDLEY 

third  reading  of  the  bill ;  but  two  days  later,  in  a  small  House, 
the  bill  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  forty-nine  to  thirty-six,  and 
the  attainder  was  reversed.1  "  Since  then,"  wrote  Constantine 
Phipps  to  Increase  Mather,  "he  is  not  so  much  talked  of  to  be 
governor."2  It  was,  indeed,  the  ending  of  any  immediate 
hopes  of  his  return  to  New  England.  Phipps  and  Ashurst, 
from  their  point  of  view,  had  done  New  England  a  great  ser- 
vice and  well  might  hope  that  "  the  door  is  nailed  against  him."3 
Though  Dudley  did  not  succeed  Phips,  the  Privy  Council 
took  under  consideration  one  of  the  policies  which  Dudley 
and  Andros  had  tried  to  put  into  practice  and  which  had  done 
much  to  render  them  unpopular.4  This  was  the  question  of 
the  union  of  all  the  northern  provinces  under  a  single  gov- 
ernor. The  Lords'  Committee  reported  that  all  the  colonies 
save  Massachusetts  made  objection  to  this  plan,  —  New 
Hampshire  because  it  would  increase  her  taxes  without  giv- 
ing additional  safety,  Connecticut  because  it  was  contrary  to 
her  charter,  New  York  because  of  her  rivalry  with  Boston, 
as  well  as  because  she  was  weak  and  exposed  and  believed  that 
she  should  be  aided  rather  than  called  upon  to  give  assistance 
to  the  New  England  colonies.  Massachusetts,  the  largest 
and  most  important  of  the  colonies,  alone  favored  the  plan. 
The  Privy  Council  voted  that,  inasmuch  as  the  charters  pre- 
vented anything  more  than  a  military  union  in  time  of  war, 
the  same  person  should  be  made  governor  of  New  Hampshire, 
Massachusetts,  and  New  York,  and  captain-general  of  the 
militia  of  the  other  colonies.  This  was  a  slight  abatement 
from  the  claims  of  the  crown  as  seen  in  the  commission  given 

1  New  York  Historical  Society,  Collections,  Publication  Fund  Series,  1868, 
p.  348. 

1  Phipps  to  Mather,  as  above. 

1  Ashurst  to  Mather,  as  above. 

*  Register  of  the  Privy  Council  (Ms.),  William  III,  iv.  586. 


SCHEMING  FOR  OFFICE  69 

to  Andros,  which  always  remained  the  ideal  to  Dudley  and 
was  the  basis  on  which  the  next  governor  of  Massachusetts 
was  commissioned.  Dudley,  however,  was  disappointed  to 
find  that  he  was  passed  over  and  that  Lord  Bellomont  was 
commissioned  governor,  April  2,  1698. 

Though  Dudley  failed  to  obtain  the  desired  post,  he  held  a 
position  in  England  by  no  means  to  be  despised.  Shortly 
after  his  arrival  he  was  made  by  Lord  Cutts  deputy-governor 
of  the  Isle  of  Wight,  a  position  which  he  held  for  nine  and 
a  half  years.1  His  duties  were  of  a  political  nature  connected 
with  the  management  of  the  municipal  affairs  of  the  island. 
By  an  agreement  between  its  important  men  and  Lord  Cutts, 
Sir  Robert  Worsley  and  his  friends  engaged  "to  assist  any 
persons  recommended  by  the  Governor  to  be  chosen  Members 
for  the  corporation  of  Newport."2  Nevertheless,  Cutts  was 
obliged  to  take  strong  measures  with  that  borough,  —  to  dis- 
franchise several  of  the  burgesses  and  to  imprison  a  clergy- 
man. To  dominate  the  town  more  completely  he  had  him- 
self elected  mayor  and  made  Dudley  his  deputy.  Cutts  also 
obtained  for  Dudley  a  commission,  probably  through  some 
irregular  means ;  and  thereafter  Dudley  was  known  as  Colonel 
Dudley.3 

This  post,  with  its  salary,  small  as  it  was,  of  six  shillings  a 

1  For  extracts  of  letters  from  Cutts  to  Dudley,  see  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  Proceedings,  2d  Series,  ii.  177  et  seq. 

*  Agreement  between  Lord  Cutts,  governor  of  the  Isle  of  Wight,  and  Sir 
Robert  Worsley,  Bart.,  and  other  principal  gentlemen  of  the  island,  "respect- 
ing the  Rights  Privileges  &c  of  the  several  corporations"  (Albin,  History  of  the 
Isle  of  Wight,  278). 

s  Cutts  to  Dudley,  January  4,  1695  :  "For,  as  to  the  King's  Comission,  you 
know  how  you  came  by  it ;  and  you  know  what  promise  you  made  (upon  your 
word  and  honour)  when  I  gave  it  you."  Also  May  n,  1695:  "I  would  not 
have  the  Dragoons  doe  any  Guards ;  and  I  would  not  have  you  order  any  of 
them  to  attend  you,  for  reasons." 


70  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

day,  Dudley  was  doubtless  glad  to  obtain ;  but  he  had  more 
far-reaching  plans.  He  hoped  to  use  the  influence  of  Cutts 
in  obtaining  the  position  he  most  desired.  Cutts  recognized 
this  ambition,  and  there  was  probably  some  reciprocal  agree- 
ment that  Dudley  should  further  his  patron's  plans  on  the 
island,  while  Cutts  should  advance  Dudley's  cause  with  the 
king.  On  April  2,  1695,  when  Dudley's  affairs  were  at  a 
crisis,  Cutts  wrote  to  him  concerning  some  service  that  he 
wished  Dudley  to  perform:  "It  is  the  best  peice  of  service 
you  can  doe  the  King,  me,  &  your  self.  .  .  .  P.  S.  I  have 
made  some  steps  in  your  affaire,  &  wish  you  were  here  for 
five  or  six  days."  Unfortunately,  Dudley  did  come  up  to 
London  and  appeared  before  the  committee  of  Parliament 
in  the  Leisler  hearing,  greatly  to  his  own  disadvantage. 

After  the  failure  of  his  plans,  Dudley  needed  more  assur- 
ances, and  these  Cutts  was  ever  ready  to  give.  In  a  letter 
written  August  12,  1697,  he  says,  "Serve  but  the  King,  &  me, 
effectually  in  this  present  storm,  and  I'l  be  instrumentall  to 
put  you  in  such  circumstances  as  you  shall  have  reason  to  be 
more  than  easy  in."  But  hope  of  Dudley's  appointment 
seemed  to  vanish,  and  when  Cutts's  influence  at  court  appeared 
to  be  on  the  decline,  his  letters  took  a  sharper  tone.  On 
April  i,  1698,  he  wrote:  "Sir,  —  I  won't  complain  of  your 
unkind  behavior  to  me,  that  is  not  the  matter  now  in  dispute ; 
tho'  in  a  week  (all  things  consider'd)  some  men  would  have 
shown  some  concern  for  One's  health  and  affaires;  but  I 
don't  insist  upon  it,  your  Personal  Civilitys  are  most  certainly 
your  own,  &  dispose  on  'em  how  you  please;  provided  you 
trouble  me  no  more  if  Fortune  should  chance  to  smile  on  me, 
than  you  doe  now.  She  seems  at  least  to  do  otherwise.  But 
this  (as  I  sayd  before)  is  not  the  matter  now  in  dispute.  That 
which  I  have  just  reason  to  complain  of  is  your  reall  neglect  of 


SCHEMING  FOR  OFFICE  71 

the  King's  service  in  your  station.  For  if  I  neither  see  nor 
hear  of  a  Lieut- Governour  in  a  Week,  I  would  fain  know 
(when  so  many  things  are  to  be  consider'd  now  the  Spring 
comes  on)  what  you  are  payd  for.  .  .  .  wn  you  come  to  the 
King's  Levee  (w**  you  should  doe  if  ever  yu  expect  any 
thing)  you  can  make  y1  reports,  &  take  my  Orders  as  you  goe 
up.  I  have  very  good  Neibours  now  &  want  no  Company." 

Although  the  coveted  post  could  not  be  gained,  Cutts  was 
still  zealous  for  his  friend,  and  had  him  returned  a  member  of 
Parliament  from  Newton  in  lyoi.1  As  a  member  of  Parlia- 
ment, Dudley  used  all  his  abilities  to  advance  his  own  interests. 
He  was,  as  was  his  habit,  regular  in  his  attendance  upon  the 
sittings,  obsequious  to  his  superiors,  and  of  engaging  manners 
to  his  equals.  On  political  questions  he  consistently  sup- 
ported the  court  party  even  at  the  expense  of  disobliging  a 
friend ; 2  but  in  the  discussions  of  colonial  affairs  he  displayed 
his  greatest  ability.  His  local  knowledge  and  wide  experience 
were  sought  by  those  in  power,  and  the  opinions  and  views 
which  he  urged  were  so  in  harmony  with  those  of  the  English 
administrators  that  his  present  position  and  future  advance- 
ment seemed  secure.3 

Indeed,  his  position  was  more  secure  than  that  as  governor 
of  the  uneasy  and  discontented  province  of  Massachusetts. 

1  In  Adlard's  The  Sutton-Dudleys  of  England  and  the  Dudleys  of  Massachu- 
setts, p.  81,  is  printed  a  letter  from  Robert  Worsley  which  shows  how  loyally 
they  carried  out  their  agreement  with  Lord  Cutts.  Writing  to  Dudley, Worsley 
says:  "To  show  you  how  ready  I  am  to  serve  you,  when  it  lye  in  my  power, 
meeting  with  my  cosen  James  at  Winchester,  this  day,  he  assured  me  of  his 
resolution  not  to  stand,  and  I  proposed  you,  he  readily  assented  to  it.  ... 
We  are  much  sollicited  for  another,  but  since  one  our  old  members  lys  down 
nothing  shall  make  ue  quit  your  interest,  though  we  shall  not  compass  it  with- 
out you  hasten." 

'Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  ii.  114. 

1  Palfrey,  History  of  New  England,  iv.  202. 


72  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

He  had  a  place  in  English  society ;  he  was  a  friend  and  corre- 
spondent of  Sir  Richard  Steele.1  He  made  the  acquaintance 
of  John  Chamberlayne,  gentleman-in-waiting  to  Prince  George, 
member  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  Christian  Knowl- 
edge, and  an  author  of  considerable  popularity.  At  this 
tune,  Chamberlayne  seems  to  have  been  acting  as  Dudley's 
social  sponsor,  as  he  later  acted  as  his  unofficial  representa- 
tive in  London.  Dudley  entertained  companies  by  his  curious 
and  "fanciful  discourses,"  and  wrote  papers  "about  the  cir- 
culation of  the  Several  Juicies  in  Fruit  Trees  and  the  solution 
of  that  nice  question  how  women  hi  the  State  of  Innocency 
could  have  been  Freed  of  the  Pains  of  childbirth,"2  which 
Chamberlayne  thought  that  the  Royal  Society  would  surely 
wish  to  print.  And  he  seems  to  have  enjoyed  society  less 
exalted ;  for  in  1702  one  of  his  friends  wrote  to  him,  "  I  need 
not  tell  you,  Sr,  that  M™  Harnage  M™  Milbank  &  the  whole 
gang  of  halfpenny  viol-players,  do  most  kindly  remember  you, 
for  your  Ex07  was  always  to  them  a  fidus  Achates  &  never 
faiPd  to  make  a  fourth  man  in  their  greatest  need  and  dis- 
tress."3 

Perhaps  to  counteract  some  of  these  influences,  he  contrib- 
uted a  paper  to  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel 
in  Foreign  Parts  entitled  "An  Account  of  the  State  of  Relig- 
ion in  the  English  Plantations  in  North  America,"4  and 
joined  the  society  himself.5  He  also  utilized  the  interest  of 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Proceedings,  2d  Series,  iii.  201. 

*  Chamberlayne  to  Dr.  Sloane,  Mss.  British  Museum,  Shane  Collection, 
439,  ff.  47. 

s  Chamberlayne  to  Dudley,  August  10,  1702,  Massachusetts  Historical  So- 
ciety, Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  529. 

4  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  Journal  (Ms.),  i.  14;  printed  in 
Hawkins,  Historical  Notices  of  the  Missions  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the 
North  American  Colonies,  23. 

5  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  Journal  (Ms.),  i.  37. 


SCHEMING  FOR  OFFICE  73 

the  Reverend  Godfrey  Dellius,  a  Dutch  clergyman  formerly 
stationed  at  Albany,  of  whom  Bellomont  wrote,  "If  a  great 
lyar,  incendiary,  and  proud  person  make  up  the  character  of 
piety,  then  Mr  Dellius  may  pass  for  a  saint."  l 

Yet  Dudley  regarded  his  life  in  England  in  the  nature  of  an 
exile.  He  had,  as  he  informed  every  New  England  man  who 
visited  him,  "a  passion  for  laying  his  bones  there,  which 
equalled  that  of  the  ancient  Athenians";2  but,  though  he 
keenly  felt  his  absence  from  his  wife  and  home,  he  was  so 
ambitious  that  he  could  not  bring  himself  to  return  a  dis- 
credited and  disappointed  man.  In  1697,  two  years  after 
his  unfortunate  experience  in  the  Leisler  affair,  but  before 
Bellomont  was  actually  appointed  and  while  his  friend  Stough- 
ton  was  acting  as  governor,  he  wrote  to  his  wife,  "I  have  used 
all  propper  means  to  return  home  in  the  service  of  my  country 
this  year,  but  it  is  otherwise  disposed  by  the  providence  of 
God,  and  to  that  we  must  submit;  and  the  more  patiently 
we  do  it,  the  more  acceptable  it  is."3  His  eldest  son,  Paul, 
joined  him  in  London ;  and  his  father,  though  straitened 
in  means,  gave  him  every  possible  advantage.  Neither  hi 
England  nor  in  Massachusetts,  however,  did  his  affairs  pros- 
per, and  he  wrote  to  his  son,  December  23,  1700:  "I  see  no 
way  for  my  owne  return  and  think  it  absolutely  necessary  that 
you  return  this  year.  I  shall  loose  what  I  have  there  and  my 
respect  and  hopes  and  family,  for  want  of  a  head ;  nor  shall 
I  be  able  to  support  myself  and  you  here  much  longer,  but 
shall  fall  into  contempt,  and  that  will  be  what  I  cannot  bear 
and  live.  ...  If  my  arrears  fayle  me,  I  must  sell  my  land 


1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  520-521. 

2  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  ii.  114. 

3  See  four  letters  from  Dudley  to  his  wife,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  513-517. 


74  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

under  my  feet  to  pay  my  debts,  and  that  will  please  those  in 
New  England  that  do  not  love  my  name."  : 

In  spite  of  discouragements,  Dudley  did  not  relax  his 
efforts.  Indeed,  if  the  report  of  Sir  Henry  Ashurst  can  be 
believed,  it  required  all  his  time  to  check  Dudley's  ambition. 
"As  for  my  self,"  he  wrote,  "the  keeping  you  from  [a]  patent 
to  ruine  you  &  from  D.  being  yor  gouerner,  I  haue  spent  many 
dayes." 2  Though  Ashurst  remained  his  enemy,  Dudley  suc- 
ceeded in  winning  to  his  support  the  other  agent  for  Massa- 
chusetts, Constantine  Phipps;  and  he  found  a  still  stronger 
ally  in  Cotton  Mather.  How  he  regained  the  interest  of  the 
Mathers  is  not  altogether  clear,  but  the  explanation  probably 
lies  in  a  petty  quarrel  in  the  Massachusetts  General  Court. 
Increase  Mather  wished  to  be  sent  to  England  as  agent  for 
the  colony,  but  was  thwarted  in  this  ambition  by  Elisha 
Cooke,  the  common  enemy  of  both  Dudley  and  the  Mathers. 
The  diary  of  Cotton  Mather  shows  that  he  spent  many  days 
in  anxious  prayer  for  his  father's  ambition,  but  without 
result,  until,  he  writes,  "my  mind  suddenly  felt  a  strange  and 
strong  operation  upon  it  which  caused  me  to  break  forth  into 
expressions  of  this  importance  The  Lord  will  do  The  Lord  will 
do  it.  My  Father  shall  be  carried  unto  England  and  so  shall 
there  have  a  short  but  great  opportunity  to  glorify  my  Lord 
Before  Christ  in  a  most  wonderful  way  it  shall  be  brought 
about."3  An  alliance  between  Dudley  and  the  Mathers 
would  certainly  be  a  wonderful  thing,  but  upon  a  clear  under- 
standing it  would  be  beneficial  to  both  parties.  Though  it 
cannot  be  proved  that  this  thought  was  the  "strong  opera- 

1  See  four  letters  from  Dudley  to  his  wife,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  520. 

2  Ashurst  to  Wait  Winthrop,  May  8,  1698,  ibid.  v.  40. 

3  From  a  manuscript  diary  of  Cotton  Mather,  in  possession  of  the  American 
Antiquarian  Society. 


SCHEMING  FOR  OFFICE  75 

tion"  from  Heaven,  yet  an  agreement  was  made  between 
them.  Dudley  pledged  himself  to  the  interest  of  the  Mathers 
—  a  pledge  that  he  found  it  impossible  to  fulfil  —  and  was 
able  to  cite  in  England  their  sanction  for  his  ambition. 

After  the  death  of  Lord  Bellomont  all  these  trains  of  influ- 
ence were  set  in  motion.  Cutts  supported  Dudley  loyally 
and  sang  his  praises  to  Marlborough;  Godfrey  Dellius  tried 
to  influence  the  bishops ;  the  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  believed 
that  Dudley  was  the  man  to  advance  the  cause  of  the  church 
and  of  missions;  Blathwayt  remained  his  friend  and  urged 
his  appointment.  His  long  experience,  his  success  in  England 
as  governor  of  the  Isle  of  Wight,  his  abilities  as  an  adminis- 
trator, and  his  skill  as  an  Indian  agent  were  among  the  points 
urged  in  his  favor.  Nor  were  colonial  influences  neglected. 
The  colonists  resident  in  London  asked  that  he  might  be  sent 
to  Massachusetts,  the  English  colonial  merchants  petitioned 
for  his  appointment,  the  dissenting  ministers  wrote  to  their 
brethren  in  New  England  praising  him,  and  a  letter  from 
Cotton  Mather  was  read  with  telling  effect.1  Only  Sir  Henry 
Ashurst  remained  hostile,  and  amid  such  a  chorus  of  praise, 
his  voice  was  not  heeded. 

Dudley  was  commissioned  by  William  III,  but  before  he 
could  leave  England  the  king  died.  His  present  good  fortune, 
however,  did  not  desert  him;  for  Queen  Anne  renewed  his 
commission,  and  showed  him  the  unusual  favor  of  remitting 
some  of  the  ordinary  fees.2  The  commission  is  dated  April  i, 
1702  ;3  on  the  i2th,  Dudley  took  his  oaths  before  the  Privy 
Council,4  and  on  April  13  sailed  for  Boston. 

1  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  ii.  115. 

fjbid.  116. 

8  Patent  Roll  No.  3421,  i  Anne,  No.  26. 

4  Register  of  the  Privy  Council  (Ms.),  Anne,  i.  82. 


CHAPTER  V 

JOSEPH  DUDLEY,  GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 
PARLIAMENTARY  RELATIONS  WITH  THE  GENERAL  COURT 

THE  "  Glorious  Revolution  "  of  1689  produced  a  vital  change 
in  the  constitution  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  colony.  Until 
1685  the  colony  was  practically  a  self-governing  community ; 
from  1685  to  1689  it  was  completely  dependent  upon  the  will 
of  the  crown ;  from  1689  to  1691  the  old  magistrates  resumed 
their  powers,  and,  though  the  government  had  little  show  of 
legal  foundation,  it  was  tacitly  recognized  in  England.  Mean- 
time the  agents  of  the  colony  were  utilizing  every  influence 
they  possessed  to  gain  the  restoration  of  the  old  charter  and 
the  continuance  of  the  de  facto  government  upon  a  legally 
recognized  foundation.  The  early  years  of  the  reign  of 
William  III,  however,  were  not  of  such  a  character  as  to  allow 
him  to  give  calm  consideration  to  the  nice  points  of  colonial 
administration  or  to  weigh  accurately  the  merits  of  the  colony's 
claims.  Much  had  to  be  left  to  his  advisers;  and  of  these, 
William  Blathwayt,  whose  skill,  industry,  and  knowledge 
impressed  the  king,  was  probably  most  influential  in  deter- 
mining the  fate  of  Massachusetts.  Hence  it  happened  that, 
although  Mather  and  Cooke  and  the  other  agents  for  the 
colony  employed  good  counsel  and  utilized  every  particle  of 
proper,  and  possibly  of  questionable,  influence  that  they  could 
exert,  their  efforts  came  to  nothing,  and  the  old  charter  was 
not  restored.  On  the  contrary,  Massachusetts  received  a 
form  of  government  in  which  the  powers  of  the  colonists  were 

76 


GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  77 

limited  and  through  which  the  influence  of  the  crown  could  be 
more  effectively  exerted. 

Weighing  the  possibilities  of  the  restoration  of  the  old 
charter  with  the  genuine  advantages  offered  by  the  new  one, 
Increase  Mather  loyally  accepted  the  inevitable  and  thus  be- 
came influential  in  the  appointment  of  the  new  governor  and 
Council ;  but  in  so  doing  he  aroused  the  enmity  of  Cooke, 
whose  experience  in  England  led  him  to  develop  into  the 
leader  of  the  opposition  to  the  new  government  when  it  was 
established  in  Massachusetts.  It  was,  however,  on  the 
whole  fortunate  that  Cooke  had  failed.  Had  the  old  charter 
been  restored,  the  colony  would  have  been  at  the  mercy  of 
the  crown  in  every  dispute  with  England.  Countless  ques- 
tions concerning  the  laws  passed  by  the  General  Court  would 
have  arisen,  which  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  English  legal- 
ists, would  have  been  decided  adversely  to  the  colony.  The 
charter  of  a  commercial  company,  however  much  interpre- 
tation and  practice  had  altered  it,  was  a  precarious  foun- 
dation for  so  large  a  community  as  the  Massachusetts  Bay 
Colony. 

The  new  charter,  issued  in  1691,  established  a  royal  province 
which  included  the  Massachusetts  Bay  colony,  Nova  Scotia 
and  Maine  and  the  lands  between  them  (which  had  in  1664 
been  granted  to  the  Duke  of  York),  Plymouth  and  the  Narra- 
gansett  country,  —  in  short,  all  the  colonies  north  of  Connecti- 
cut and  Rhode  Island,  except  New  Hampshire,  which  was  left 
a  separate  royal  province.  The  executive  power  was  vested 
in  a  governor  and  deputy-governor,  who,  together  with  the 
secretary,  were  appointed  by  the  crown.  The  upper  house, 
or  Council,  was,  after  the  terms  of  the  original  royal  appointees 
had  expired  in  1693,  to  be  elected  by  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives with  the  assent  of  the  governor.  The  House  con- 


78  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OP  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

sisted  of  representatives  chosen  from  each  town  by  those  who 
possessed  a  freehold  of  forty  shillings  or  a  personal  estate  of 
forty  pounds.  The  two  houses,  with  the  governor,  formed  the 
General  Court.  To  this  General  Court  was  given  full  legis- 
lative and  financial  power,  subject  first  to  the  veto  of  the 
governor,  and  then  to  that  of  the  king,  to  whom  all  laws  must 
be  sent  for  approval.  Appeals  to  England  in  cases  over  three 
hundred  pounds  were  allowed.  Judges,  sheriffs,  and  other 
officers,  executive,  judicial,  and  military,  were  appointed  by 
the  governor  with  the  consent  of  the  Council ;  and  the  gover- 
nor was  made  captain-general  of  the  military  force  of  the 
colony. 

This  form  of  government  stood  midway  between  the  type 
which  existed  in  the  so-called  charter  colonies  and  that  which 
developed  in  the  royal  provinces.  Connecticut  and  Rhode 
Island,  relying  upon  their  charters,  were  practically  free  from 
royal  control  hi  time  of  peace,  except  from  such  power  as  the 
crown  could  exert  in  hearing  and  determining  appeals.  In 
Virginia  and  New  York,  practically  the  same  form  of  govern- 
ment existed  as  obtained  hi  Massachusetts,  save  that,  inas- 
much as  their  councils  were  composed  of  royal  appointees, 
their  governors  were  less  likely  to  be  thwarted  and  their 
councils  more  ready  to  take  a  stand  against  the  lower  houses. 
The  feature  of  an  elected  council  was  an  anomaly  in  colonial 
constitutions,  and  by  weakening  the  influence  of  the  governor 
in  Massachusetts  made  his  task  so  much  the  more  difficult. 
Thus,  although  Massachusetts  was  reduced  to  a  royal  province, 
her  political  life  suffered  no  .deterioration.  Indeed,  the 
colonial  politicians,  accepting  the  charter  as  their  constitu- 
tion, found  in  the  frame  of  government  which  it  established 
methods  of  thwarting  the  will  of  England  which  were  nearly 
as  effective  and  far  safer  than  those  which  were  tried  under 


GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  79 

the  old  charter.  A  shrewd,  vigorous,  and  able  school  of  poli- 
ticians was  developed,  which  was  the  bane  of  the  royal  gover- 
nors, but  the  hope  of  Massachusetts. 

Possibly  to  gain  the  confidence  of  the  colonists,  William  III 
accepted  the  advice  of  Increase  Mather  and  appointed  Sir 
William  Phips,  a  native  of  Massachusetts,  as  the  first  governor. 
The  horror  of  the  witchcraft  persecution,  however,  cast  a 
shadow  over  his  accession,  his  ill-fated  expedition  against 
Quebec  hurt  his  prestige,  and  his  constant  wrangles  with  the 
General  Court  and  royal  officials  made  it  possible  for  his 
enemies  to  secure  his  recall.  Once  in  England,  he  was  at 
Dudley's  mercy,  and  there  died,  it  is  asserted,  from  the  results 
of  his  persecution.  Lord  Bellomont  was  the  second  governor. 
Though  personally  popular  with  the  colonists,  he  could  make 
no  headway  against  the  colonial  politicians,  and  was  unable 
to  secure  the  adoption  of  the  policies  of  the  Board  of  Trade. 
He  died  in  office,  worn  out  by  disappointment  and  mortifica- 
tion, conscious  of  his  failure  in  America,  and  embittered  by 
his  lack  of  support  from  England.  It  was  Dudley's  ambition 
to  fill  this  dubious  and  uncomfortable  post,  and,  as  has  been 
seen,  his  desire  was  gratified ;  but  in  gaining  supporters  to 
urge  his  appointment  he  also  raised  up  new  enemies  in  Massa- 
chusetts and  added  new  difficulties  to  the  task  which  had 
already  proved  too  great  for  both  Bellomont  and  Phips. 

The  commission  granted  to  Dudley1  was  more  like  the  one 
issued  to  Phips  than  that  given  to  Bellomont.  In  the  latter, 
as  the  result  of  the  discussions  in  the  Privy  Council,  New  York 
had  been  added  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Bellomont ;  but  now  that 
colony  was  put  under  a  governor  of  its  own.  Dudley,  how- 
ever, received  a  commission  for  the  government  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  was  directed  to  take  command  of  the  military 
1  See  Appendix  A,  below. 


8o  THE   PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

strength  of  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  in  time  of  war  or 
danger. 

More  significant  than  his  commission  are  his  instructions, 
which  fill  thirty  folio  pages  in  the  "  Colonial  Entry  Book,"  l 
and  show  clearly  the  plans  of  the  Board  of  Trade  and  the 
pledges  that  Dudley  hoped  to  redeem.  By  these  instructions 
he  was  to  take  care  that  the  members  of  the  Council  were 
"Men  of  good  life  and  well  affected  to  our  Government  and 
good  Estates  and  abilities  and  not  necessitous  persons  or 
much  in  Debt."  Phips  and  Bellomont  had  received  no  fixed 
salary,  but  had  been  dependent  upon  the  good  will  of  the 
General  Court  as  expressed  in  an  annual  grant;  Dudley, 
however,  had  intimated  that  he  would  be  able  to  have  the 
salary  of  the  governor  determined  by  a  general  law,  and  was 
therefore  instructed  to  use  his  "  utmost  Endeavour  with  them, 
that  an  Act  be  past  for  settling  and  establishing  fixed  Salaries 
[upon  himself]  and  others."  The  question  of  the  fortification 
of  the  northern  posts  had  been  a  vexed  one  between  the 
governors  and  the  Court;  and  here  again  Dudley  had  prob- 
ably given  the  Board  of  Trade  to  understand  that  he  could 
carry  out  their  desires,  which  were  expressed  by  a  special 
clause  hi  his  instructions.  The  English  merchants  were  also 
feeling  with  increasing  keenness  the  competition  of  the  Ameri- 
cans in  what  had,  since  1695,  been  an  illegal  trade  for  the 
colonists;  and  Dudley  had  probably  pledged  himself  to  put 
an  end  to  this  trade,  for  this  would  have  been  in  keeping  with 
his  character  as  a  strict  upholder  of  the  rights  of  the  crown. 
Moreover,  as  has  been  seen,  the  merchants  in  England  had 
petitioned  for  his  appointment,  —  an  unlikely  circumstance 
unless  he  had  given  them  some  assurances  of  his  policy.  To 
fortify  him,  therefore,  the  Board  not  only  inserted  six  clauses 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Colonial  Entry  Book,  New  England  (Ms.),  39,  D.  30  et  seq. 


GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  81 

in  his  instructions,  but  issued  a  special  instruction  of  twenty 
clauses  directed  to  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  trade.1 

With  such  instructions,  sure  to  increase  his  difficulties, 
Dudley  sailed  for  Boston,  April  13,  1702.  The  passage  was 
a  pleasant  one  ;  Dudley's  companions,  two  missionaries  of  the 
Church  of  England  sent  out  by  the  Society  for  the  Propaga- 
tion of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  so  enjoyed  themselves  that 
one  of  them  declared  that  had  the  passage  been  five  months 
instead  of  five  weeks  it  would  have  seemed  short.2  Though 
at  times  he  was  so  desperately  seasick  that  his  life  was  de- 
spaired of,  Dudley  was  evidently  very  happy,  and  perhaps  a 
little  patronizing  to  his  shipmates,  whom  he  nevertheless 
charmed  by  his  gracious  manner.  Keith,  one  of  them,  thus 
writes  of  him:  "He  was  so  very  civil  &  kind  to  Mr  Gordon 
&  me  that  he  caused  us  both  to  eat  at  his  Table  all  the  Voyage, 
and  his  Conversation  was  both  pleasant  and  Instructive,  in  so 
much  that  the  Great  Cabin  of  the  Ship  was  like  a  Colledge  for 
good  Discourse  both  in  matters  Theological  and  Philosophical 
and  very  cordially  he  joined  daily  with  us  in  divine  worship, 
and  I  well  understand  he  purposeth  to  give  all  possible  En- 
couragem1  to  the  Congregation  of  the  Church  of  England  in 
this  place."3 

While  the  weeks  were  thus  passing  pleasantly  for  Dudley,  a 
very  different  feeling  pervaded  Massachusetts.  His  career 
under  Andros  was  still  remembered  by  many  ;  his  conduct  in 
the  trial  of  Leisler  was  generally  disapproved  ;  and  his  persistent 
scheming  for  office  during  the  past  ten  years  had  not  increased 
his  popularity.  Moreover,  it  may  well  be  believed  that  the 
remnants  of  the  old  "faction"  and  the  party  led  by  Cooke 


.  D.  118. 

2  Patrick  Gordon  to  the  secretary  of  the  Society,  in  the  Society's  Letters 
(Ms.)>  i-  No.  12.  *  Keith  to  the  secretary,  ibid.  No.  9. 


82  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

might  well  fear  the  coming  of  a  man  of  his  abilities  and  power. 
It  was  discussed  whether  it  would  be  advisable  to  prevent 
his  landing  by  force ; *  but  fortunately  for  Massachusetts,  no 
such  step  was  taken.  On  the  other  hand,  the  opponents  of 
Cooke  and  his  party,  among  whom  the  Mathers  must  be 
reckoned  for  the  moment,  rejoiced  at  the  opportunity  of  defeat- 
ing their  rivals.  With  them  must  be  counted  the  few  who  had 
supported  Dudley  during  the  administration  of  Andros,  and 
all  those  who  hoped  for  place  or  influence  under  the  changed 
conditions.  Their  satisfaction  was  as  little  concealed  as  the 
hostility  of  Dudley's  enemies;  and,  if  Wait  Winthrop  cor- 
rectly reported  their  feelings,  several  of  Dudley's  enemies 
were  "  beforehand  marked  out  for  displeasure,  at  least,  if  not 
to  be  Leislerized,  as  they  call  it." 2  Happily,  however,  both 
friends  and  enemies  suspended  their  mutual  animosities,  and 
not  only  was  his  landing  unopposed,  but  the  Council  made 
extensive  plans  for  his  reception.3 

On  the  day  of  his  landing,  Dudley  met  the  General  Court 
and  began  a  struggle  which  was  to  continue  throughout  his 
administration.  Although  the  constitutional  reforms  of  the 
"Glorious  Revolution"  did  not  reach  the  American  colonies, 
attempts  were  made  by  the  colonial  assemblies  to  copy  the 
sovereignty  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Though  legally  depen- 
dent upon  royal  commissions,  charters,  and  acts  of  Parliament, 
and  hence  strictly  subordinate  and  non-sovereign  bodies,  the 
colonial  assemblies  were  constantly  claiming  for  themselves 
the  same  rights  in  legal  and  financial  matters  that  were  exer- 
cised by  Parliament.  All  the  efforts  of  the  Board  of  Trade, 

1  George  Larkin  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  in  its  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.), 
ii,  K.  4. 

2  Winthrop  to  Ashurst,  March,  1702,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Col- 
lections, 6th  Series,  v.  no. 

J  Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.),  xlviii.  345. 


GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  83 

the  English  sovereigns,  and  even  Parliament  itself,  to  restrict 
their  freedom  of  action  and  to  control  their  legislation,  were 
met  by  protests,  evasions,  or,  when  all  else  failed,  by  grudging 
concession.  Moreover,  the  lower  houses  of  the  assemblies 
persisted  in  regarding  themselves  as  possessed  of  all  the  pre- 
rogatives which  the  English  House  of  Commons  had  in  its 
relations  with  the  House  of  Lords.  The  councils  of  the 
colonial  assemblies  seemed,  from  their  appointive  character, 
to  bear  some  resemblance  to  the  hereditary  chamber  in  Parlia- 
ment ;  and  certainly  in  most  royal  colonies  the  councils  usually 
acted  in  harmony  with  the  royal  governors.  To  check  this 
seeming  encroachment,  the  representatives  adopted  the  same 
procedure  that  had  won  for  the  House  of  Commons  its  inde- 
pendence and  sovereignty. 

The  success  of  the  contentions  of  the  colonists  is  best  seen 
in  New  York,  a  royal  province,  which  existed  without  a  char- 
ter, entirely  dependent  upon  the  will  of  the  crown.  Begin- 
ning in  1689  on  the  slender  basis  of  a  clause  in  Sloughter's 
commission  which  allowed  an  assembly,  the  representatives 
steadily  advanced  their  pretensions.  Frankly  asserting  that 
they  were  imitating  the  English  House  of  Commons,1  they 
gained  privileges  and  rights,  until  by  1715  they  controlled  the 
raising  and  appropriating  of  money ; 2  had  the  appointment 
of  the  provincial  treasurer  in  their  hands,3  were  through  their 
control  of  the  purse  influential  in  the  direction  of  military 
affairs,4  had  obtained  a  voice  hi  the  establishment  of  the 
courts,5  and  had  made  good  their  pretension  that,  like  the 

1  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  iv.  1121. 

2  Journal  of  the  New  York  Assembly,  i.  186. 

1  Ibid.  179-191,  212-214;   New  York  Colonial  Documents,  iv.  1172. 
4  Journal  of  the  Legislative  Council  of  New  York,  i.  78-80 ;   and  Journal  of 
Assembly,  i.  150. 

'  Journal  of  Assembly,  i.  150,  157,  224,  etc. 


84  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

Commons,  their  money  bills  could  not  be  amended.1  Two 
circumstances  aided  the  New  York  colonists.  The  period  was 
one  of  almost  continuous  warfare,  and  New  York  was  con- 
stantly threatened  from  the  north;  hence  the  military  exi- 
gencies of  the  time  frequently  forced  the  governors  to  yield 
to  the  popular  clamor  in  order  to  gain  the  much-needed 
supplies.  The  character  of  the  governors  appointed  during 
this  period  was  the  second  favoring  circumstance.  All  of 
them  were  Englishmen,  none  of  them  were  men  of  marked 
ability,  and  most  of  them  were  in  such  desperate  financial 
straits  that  they  willingly  bartered  a  constitutional  point 
for  the  grant  of  salary  which  the  Assembly  doled  out  in 
return. 

Many  of  the  constitutional  points  which  vexed  the  gover- 
nors of  New  York  were  settled  by  the  Massachusetts  charter, 
most  of  them  hi  favor  of  the  Assembly ;  and  in  addition,  the 
power  of  the  governor  over  his  Council  was  greatly  restricted 
in  Massachusetts.  That  colony,  like  New  York,  was  threat- 
ened by  the  French,  and  doubly  so,  since  overland  invasions 
from  Canada  menaced  the  inland  towns,  while  the  commerce 
of  the  colony  and  its  seacoast  settlements  were  endangered 
by  the  French  possession  of  Port  Royal.  There  was  the  same 
necessity  for  military  operations  as  in  New  York,  and  even 
greater  supplies  were  demanded,  raised,  and  expended.  Yet 
during  this  period  it  is  to  be  doubted  whether  the  politicians, 
though  incessantly  active,  gained  a  single  constitutional  point. 
Rather,  with  two  exceptions,  they  were  led  to  comply  with 
demands  of  the  crown. 

The  great  reason  for  this  appears  to  be  in  the  character  of 
the  colonial  governors.  As  has  been  seen,  Phips  and  Bello- 
mont  were  not  successful,  nor  were  their  characters  such  as  to 

1  Journal  of  Assembly,  \.  99-202,  199,  207,  307. 


GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  85 

promise  any  great  success.  Joseph  Dudley,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  possessed  of  great  force  and  ability.  He  had  shown  his 
energy  and  capacity  in  every  post  that  he  had  occupied,  and 
now  in  the  maturity  of  his  powers  he  was  returning  to  a  field 
with  which  he  was  familiar.  Phips,  it  is  true,  was  a  native  of 
the  colony;  but  there  was  a  vast  difference  between  a  rough 
sea  captain  for  whom  a  lucky  adventure  had  won  a  title,  and 
the  son  of  the  second  governor  of  Massachusetts,  who  had 
family  connections,  education,  and  long  experience  both  in 
England  and  America  at  his  command.  Bellomont,  perhaps, 
had  as  high  ideals  of  the  duties  and  functions  of  a  colonial 
governor;  but  without  support  from  England,  and  entirely 
dependent  upon  the  annual  grants  of  the  Assembly,  he  had 
been  unable  to  withstand  the  pressure.  As  has  been  shown, 
during  his  nine  years'  residence  in  England  Dudley  had  gamed 
new  and  influential  friends,  men  who  stood  high  in  the  councils 
of  Queen  Anne,  while  Blathwayt,  his  former  friend  and  patron, 
remained  his  constant  supporter.  In  addition,  Dudley  was  a 
wealthy  man.  Just  how  great  an  estate  he  possessed  at  this 
time  cannot  be  ascertained ;  but,  as  has  been  seen,  his  income 
was  sufficient,  —  with  difficulty,  it  is  true,  —  to  support  him 
and  his  son  Paul  in  England,  and  had  allowed  him  to  become 
a  member  of  Parliament.  Life  in  Boston  was  vastly  less 
expensive  than  in  London,  and  Dudley  found  it  easy  not  merely 
to  exist  upon  his  private  income,  but  to  pass  as  one  of  the 
wealthy  men  of  the  colony.  Thus  in  ability,  experience,  and 
fortune  Dudley  differed  from  the  previous  governors  of  Massa- 
chusetts and  from  his  needy  contemporaries  in  the  neighboring 
provinces,  and  hence  entered  upon  the  political  struggles  with 
better  prospects  of  success. 

Relying  upon  such  support,   Dudley  at  once  adopted  a 
vigorous  tone  with  the  General  Court,  and  invited  rather  than 


86  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

avoided  opposition.  Following  the  example  set  by  Bellomont, 
he  summoned  the  representatives  to  the  council  chamber, 
where  he  addressed  them.  In  this  first  address  there  was  no 
apology  or  regret  for  his  previous  career,  and  no  attempt  to 
conciliate  the  men  who  twelve  years  before  had  sent  him  a 
prisoner  to  England.  On  the  other  hand,  there  was  no  exulta- 
tion at  his  triumphant  return,  or  any  hint  that  his  former 
opponents  would  suffer,  or  his  present  supporters  be  rewarded. 
Almost  like  a  stranger,  and  entirely  like  a  royal  official,  he 
discussed  the  position  of  Massachusetts  and  set  forth  what  was 
expected  of  her.  Massachusetts,  he  said,  was  not  so  profit- 
able to  England  as  the  southern  colonies  were;  therefore  let 
the  trade  which  this  colony  could  supply,  particularly  in 
the  matter  of  naval  stores,  be  fostered.  Above  all,  he  cau- 
tioned, have  "care  that  our  Trade  be  kept  within  the  Strictest 
Bounds  of  all  Acts  of  Parliament  and  that  all  false  Trade  and 
piracys  be  with  utmost  diligence  prevented  and  Supprest." 
After  touching  upon  the  possibilities  of  war  and  the  need  of 
fortifications  on  the  northern  frontier,  a  much-debated  point, 
he  boldly  attacked  the  question  of  the  settlement  of  the  gov- 
ernor's salary,  which  previous  governors,  acting  upon  royal 
instructions,  had  been  unable  to  obtain.  "  Since  this  Prov- 
ince," he  said,  "is  so  particularly  favored  by  the  Crown  in 
more  instances  than  one,  their  ready  obedience  is  justly 
expected  in  this,  and  all  other  Occasions."1 

Thus  at  the  very  first  meeting  of  the  General  Court,  Dudley 
adopted  a  tone  and  urged  policies  which  were  bound  to  bring 
him  into  conflict  with  that  assembly  and  to  render  his  admin- 
istration difficult.  From  a  reading  of  his  instructions,  how- 
ever, it  is  hard  to  see  how  he  could  have  done  otherwise ;  and 
perhaps  he  took  this  course  willingly,  believing  that  under  his 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  vii.  289,  June  n,  1702. 


GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  87 

management  the  recalcitrant  Court  of  Massachusetts  might 
become  more  obedient  and  loyal. 

In  his  management  of  the  assembly,  Dudley  displayed  not 
merely  the  characteristics  that  he  had  shown  in  his  previous 
career,  but  a  keen  appreciation  of  his  position  as  the  executive 
of  the  crown.  He  was  always  to  be  found  on  the  side  of  pre- 
rogative, whether  it  was  his  own  or  whether  it  was  connected 
with  the  rights  of  the  Council,  the  officers,  or  the  judges.  He 
unfailingly  attempted  to  carry  out  his  instructions  and  com- 
mands from  England,  and  never,  except  on  the  salary  question, 
would  submit  to  a  compromise.  He  preferred,  when  it  came 
to  a  question  between  obedience  to  the  commands  of  the  queen 
and  compliance  with  the  desires  of  the  assembly,  to  insist  upon 
the  former,  even  at  the  expense  of  unpopularity  and  defeat. 
To  this  characteristic  was  due  much  of  his  unpopularity  among 
the  colonial  politicians,  but  also  to  this  he  owed  the  support 
that  was  given  him  in  England,  which  enabled  him  to 
maintain  his  position  so  long  in  the  face  of  determined 
opposition. 

Although  this  position  and  the  policies  that  he  urged 
brought  him  into  frequent  collisions  with  the  General  Court, 
Dudley  was  enough  of  a  New  Englander  to  understand  the 
people  and  to  recognize  the  burdens  which  his  policies  entailed. 
Whenever  the  assembly  adopted  them  Dudley  was  honest 
enough  to  report  the  same  to  the  Board  of  Trade  and  to  give 
the  people  just  credit.  In  1704,  for  example,  he  wrote  to  the 
Board,  "I  must  doe  the  Assembly  here  that  justice  to  say 
that  though  they  have  not  obeyed  Her  Majesty  in  providing 
for  my  support  here,  they  have  very  frankly  submitted  to  my 
appoytment  at  all  times  for  the  numbers  of  men  and  their  sup- 
port." l  Such  a  frank  recognition,  which  he  took  care  to  have 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  12,  P.  6. 


88  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

placed  on  the  records  of  the  Court,1  was  doubtless  appreciated 
by  the  House,  and  made  it  somewhat  less  bitter  than  the 
words  of  its  addresses  and  protests,  framed  by  the  politicians, 
would  lead  the  reader  to  suppose. 

His  relations  with  the  Council  were  on  the  whole  friendly ; 
but  this  harmony  was  due  more  to  the  weakness  of  the  Council 
and  its  jealousy  of  the  lower  house  than  to  any  popularity 
of  his  own.  He  was,  however,  in  his  relation  to  the  Council, 
in  a  more  difficult  position  than  any  other  provincial  governor 
in  America.  In  all  the  other  colonies  save  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island  the  councils  were  appointed  by  the  proprietors 
or  the  crown,  on  the  nomination  of  the  governors.  The  charter 
of  Massachusetts,  on  the  contrary,  provided  that  the  Council 
should  consist  of  twenty-eight  men  elected  by  the  House 
with  the  approval  of  the  governor;  but,  as  the  veto  of  the 
governor  had  been  used  in  only  one  Instance,2  the  representa- 
tives had  come  to  regard  it  as  their  privilege  to  elect  whom- 
soever they  chose  to  the  Council. 

Dudley  at  once  recognized  the  difficulties  of  his  position  and 
the  anomaly  of  having  the  councillors  depend  for  their  seats 
upon  the  will  of  the  House.  In  one  of  his  first  reports  to  the 
Board  of  Trade,  he  wrote  in  discouraging  language  concerning 
the  cooperation  of  the  Council  in  military  affairs.  "I  am 
morally  Assured,"  he  declared,  "before  I  Enter  upon  it  with 
them,  that  I  shall  not  obtain  one  Voice  of  a  Councillour^for 
fear  of  their  precarious  places  depending  upon  the  peoples 
voices;  and  so  Her  Majesties  affairs  here  will  unavoidably 
suffer  till  the  Councill  here  shall  value  their  Duty  more  than 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  105. 

1  Phips  had  removed  Cooke.  This  is  the  only  actual  removal,  but  in  Sewall's 
Diary,  May  29,  1701,  is  this  entry:  "L4  Govr  Aproves  all  but  Mr.  Corwin, 
and  to  him  he  demurrs,  taking  some  time  of  Consideration"  (Massachusetts 
Historical  Society,  Collections,  sth  Series,  vi.  34). 


GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  89 

their  Situation  or  Depend  absolutely  upon  her  Majesties 
Appointment."1  Three  months'  experience  in  Massachusetts 
but  convinced  him  that  this  method  of  choice  was  undesirable, 
not  simply  because  of  the  Council's  subserviency  to  the  House, 
but  also  because  of  the  character  of  the  councillors  chosen, 
and  he  thus  reported :  "  As  in  this  province  the  Council  being 
of  the  Peoples  Election  many  of  the  Most  loyall  Persons,  and 
of  the  best  Estates  are  not  Imployed,  and  those  that  are  so 
many  of  them  are  Commonwealthmen,  and  all  so  absolutely 
Depend  for  their  Station  upon  the  People  that  they  dare  not 
offend  them,  and  so  Her  Majesty  has  no  manner  of  service  from 
them  nor  Cou'ntenance  to  Her  Majesty's  affairs." 2 

It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that,  when  Dudley  found  him- 
self thwarted  by  the  Council,  he  should  have  made  use  of  his 
prerogative.  This  he  did  in  1703  by  refusing  to  confirm  five 
men  as  being  either  of  poor  estate  or  disaffected  to  the  gov- 
ernment.3 In  the  case  of  Cooke,  who  had  opposed  the  charter 
consistently,  and  was  leading  the  opposition  in  the  House, 
Dudley  was  undoubtedly  right.  Perhaps,  however,  he 
pushed  his  resentment  too  far  when  he  refused  Peter  Sergeant, 
who  had  married  the  widow  of  his  old  enemy  Sir  William 
Phips ;  yet  it  must  be  remembered  that  Sergeant  was  opposing 
the  governor  on  the  question  of  fortifying  the  northern  posts 
and  was  urging  the  Council  to  join  in  the  opposition.4  In 
any  case,  Dudley  was  within  his  legal  rights,  and  the  House 
was  forced  to  comply,  though  unwillingly.  This  prerogative 
Dudley  continued  to  exercise  throughout  his  administration: 
during  his  term  of  service  Cooke  never  sat  hi  the  Council; 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  n.  L.  12. 
1  Ibid.  12,  M.  10. 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  vii.  385,  May  27,  1703. 
4  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  13,  Q.  78. 


90  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

but  through  the  activity  of  Sir  Henry  Ashurst,  the  Board  of 
Trade  hinted  that  Dudley  had  better  admit  Sergeant,  which 
he  did  in  1707.  Thus  his  control  over  the  Council  was  partly 
due  to  his  repeated  use  of  the  veto  over  the  choice  of  coun- 
cillors, so  that  he  forced  the  House  to  elect  a  Council  which 
should,  as  his  instructions  required,  be  "well  affected"  to 
the  government.  Not  that  all  the  councillors  were  his  sup- 
porters ;  but  Dudley  saw  to  it  that  none  of  the  open  enemies 
of  the  government  or  any  persons  implacably  hostile  to  himself 
had  seats. 

This  liberal  exercise  of  the  right  to  refuse  to  confirm  coun- 
cillors precipitated  an  open  breach  with  the  House.  Though 
forced  to  acquiesce  in  the  governor's  action,  the  House  hated 
him  for  the  exercise  of  his  legal  power.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  election  of  the  Council  by  the  House  was  to  weaken  one 
of  the  means  of  influence  that  in  other  colonies  was  at  the 
command  of  the  royal  governor.  This  was  seen  by  Colonel 
Quarry,  the  successor  of  Randolph,  who  reported  that  it  was 
impossible  "for  any  Governour  to  serve  the  Interests  of  the 
Crown  under  the  present  Constitution  of  that  Government, 
for  as  long  as  they  have  the  choice  of  the  Council  .  .  .  they 
have  nothing  to  hope  for  or  fear  from  the  Queen's  Govern- 
ment."1 Dudley  himself  reported  in  1703,  "It  is  every 
day  now  more  Apparent  that  nothing  will  proceed  well  here 
till  Her  Maty  will  please  to  name  her  owne  Council,  the  best 
men  in  the  province  can  have  no  Share  in  the  Civil  Governm' 
till  then." 2  By  the  "best"  men  Dudley  meant  his  partisans, 
who,  had  they  been  in  the  Council,  would  doubtless  have 
made  his  path  smoother.  Yet  throughout  his  administration 
the  councillors  supported  him  on  most  questions,  not  merely 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  3d  Series,  vii.  229. 
*  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  12,  N.  22. 


GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  91 

because  they  needed  his  confirmation,  but  usually  because  of 
his  skill  and  tact  in  dealing  with  them.  When  these  failed, 
an  outburst  of  temper  or  some  high-handed  action  would  some- 
time win  him  the  victory. 

In  dealing  with  the  House,  Dudley  used  much  the  same 
method.  He  invariably  insisted  upon  his  prerogative,  not 
only  in  the  use  of  the  veto,  but  also  in  military  affairs  and  in 
purely  executive  acts.  In  these  attempts  he  was  aided  by  the 
Council,  which  usually  sided  with  him  in  his  disputes  with  the 
House,  and  always  when  the  dispute  was  over  a  question  of 
prerogative.  At  the  first  session  of  the  General  Court  in 
1702,  the  House  not  only  refused  to  comply  with  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Council  concerning  the  fortification  of 
Pemaquid,  but  even  refused  to  hold  a  conference  over  the 
matter.1  This  action  the  Council  declared  to  be  a  "great 
Infringement  on  the  rights  and  Priviledges  of  the  Council 
.  .  .  [and  insisted]  upon  the  said  Conference  and  Desire 
the  Governour  to  direct  it  accordingly." 2  On  the  next  day  the 
House  weakened  and  ordered  the  Conference.  Again,  in  the 
summer  of  1703  the  House  amended  a  tax  bill  by  adding 
the  restriction  that  drafts  on  the  treasury  for  incidental 
expenses  should  not  exceed  eighty  pounds.  This  displeased 
the  governor  and  Council,  who  voted  that  the  bill  be  sent 
back  and  the  "Tackage"  be  removed.  Though  the  House 
attempted  to  carry  the  point,  it  was  forced  to  retract  after 
another  speech  and  a  message  from  the  governor.3 

The  Council  regarded  itself  as  the  upper  house  in  point  of 
dignity,  and  attempted  to  force  the  deputies  to  attend  upon  it. 
In  1703  it  demanded  a  copy  of  an  address  which  the  House 
was  preparing  for  the  queen.  The  House  refused,  saying 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  vii.  329. 

z  Ibid.  November  3.  3  Ibid.  416,  July  17,  21,  22,  1703. 


92  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

that  its  journal  was  on  its  table  and  that  the  councillors  could 
come  and  examine  it  for  themselves.  After  a  deadlock  of  a 
few  days  the  matter  was  finally  compromised  by  the  Council's 
sending  a  committee  to  receive  a  copy  from  the  clerk  of  the 
House.1  In  1705,  however,  the  Council  failed  to  support 
Dudley.  He  was  urging  that  the  House  take  some  action 
concerning  the  queen's  commands  relating  to  the  question  of 
salaries  and  forts.  The  House  tried  to  evade  the  issue  by 
alleging  a  small  attendance ; 2  whereupon  Dudley  called  the 
deputies  to  the  council  chamber  and  was  "very  tort  &  tight 
in  his  speech"  with  them.3  The  House  returned,  and  pres- 
ently sent  up  a  long  paper  denying  that  the  forts  were  neces- 
sary and  asserting  that  it  was  one  of  its  privileges  to  fix  the 
salaries  as  it  chose ;  and  to  the  governor's  mortification,  the 
Council  concurred  with  the  House  in  this  matter.4  In  one 
instance  in  which  the  Council  had  not  supported  him  ade- 
quately, Dudley  reported  untruthfully  that  the  Council  was 
unanimous,5  and  thus  drew  upon  himself  a  vigorous  protest 
from  a  dissenting  member.6 

In  spite  of  these  means,  Dudley  was  not  always  successful 
in  gaining  his  ends.  Perhaps  the  most  noteworthy  failure, 
aside  from  the  questions  of  fortifications  and  salary,  was  the 
quarrel  over  the  choice  of  the  speaker  of  the  House.  The 
governor  had  continued  to  strike  out  Oakes  whenever  he  was 
elected  to  the  Council ;  hence  in  1 705  the  House  chose  him 
for  its  speaker.  The  governor  vetoed  the  choice,  but  the 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms),  viii.  11-12. 

2  Ibid.  149,  September  6,  1705. 

1  Sewall  to  Winthrop,  September  7,  1705,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  6th  Series,  v.  135. 

4  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  150-153,  September  n,  12,  1705. 

8  Ibid.  153. 

'  SewalPs  Diary,  November  20,  25,  1707,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  5th  Series,  vi.  202. 


GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  93 

House  refused  to  elect  any  one  else  or  to  make  any  compro- 
mise, though  urged  by  Sewall,  who  was  sent  on  a  committee 
for  that  purpose.1  There  was  a  long  debate  in  the  Council, 
and  the  question  was  finally  decided  against  the  governor, 
who  yielded  for  reasons  thus  stated  by  himself:  "I  am  very 
well  satisfied  of  Her  Majty8  right  &  prerogative  to  Allow  or 
disallow  the  Speaker  of  the  Assembly  of  this  province  as  well 
as  the  Council  being  all  elected  by  the  Assembly.  Therefore 
I  have  proceeded  as  I  have  done  &  as  far  as  I  can  at  present 
in  this  matter  but  I  have  the  just  Sence  of  the  pressing  Affairs 
of  the  War  that  demand  a  very  Sudden  dispatch  of  this  Ses- 
sion, That  will  not  consist  of  long  debates  of  anything,  & 
therefore  I  shall  not  delay  the  Affairs  necessary  for  the  Secu- 
rity of  the  Province  which  I  desire  may  be  first  attended. 
Saving  to  Her  Most  Sacred  Maty  her  just  Rights  as  above  at 
all  times." 2  The  Board  of  Trade,  to  which  Dudley  reported 
this  circumstance,  approved  his  action.  ''You  did  well,"  it 
wrote,  "to  Assert  her  Majesty's  Prerogative  in  that  particu- 
lar ...  and  therefore  you  may  upon  the  like  occassions 
acquaint  the  Council  that  it  will  not  be  thought  fitt  that  her 
Majesty's  right  of  having  a  negative  upon  the  Choice  of 
Speaker  and  Counsellours  be  given  up."3 

There  were,  however,  two  points  in  his  instructions  on 
which  Dudley  was  unable  to  force  the  Court  to  take  action. 
The  first  was  the  question  of  the  fortifications  at  Piscataqua 
and  Pemaquid.  The  defence  of  the  northern  frontier  had 
been  begun  by  Sir  Edmund  Andros  shortly  before  the  out- 
break of  the  war  between  France  and  England.  On  his  last 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  114-115,  May  30,  1705;   Sewall's 
Diary,  May  30,  1705. 

2  Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.),  cviii.  No.  30. 

*  Board  of  Trade,  Colonial  Entry  Book,  New  England  (Ms.),  41,  F.  115. 


94  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

journey  north,  he  had  established  eleven  forts  or  posts  and 
garrisoned  them  with  six  hundred  men ;  but  in  the  following 
year  some  of  these  were  captured  and,  the  troops  being  with- 
drawn, the  fortifications  had  fallen  into  decay.  In  1693  Sir 
William  Phips  renewed  the  policy  of  Andros  and  erected  a 
fort  at  Pemaquid  from  plans  furnished  him  by  the  English 
government;  but  his  action  was  regarded  by  the  colonists 
in  the  light  of  a  grievance  and  his  policy  was  unpopular. 
Bellomont  had  not  been  any  more  successful ;  and  just  before 
Dudley  was  commissioned  the  Board  of  Trade  had  presented 
a  strong  recommendation  on  the  subject  to  the  Privy  Council.1 
The  Privy  Council  had  inserted  a  clause  in  Dudley's  instruc- 
tions upon  the  matter,  and  had  passed  a  special  order  direct- 
ing Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  to  fortify  five  posts 
on  their  coasts.2 

Dudley,  moreover,  had  probably  given  the  Board  of  Trade 
to  understand  that  he  could  force  the  Court  to  make  some 
appropriation;  and  certainly  he  made  a  gallant  attempt,  for 
during  the  first  three  years  of  his  administration,  this  ques- 
tion was  the  leading  one.  At  first  it  looked  as  if  the  governor 
might  gam  his  point,  for  the  Council  reported  in  favor  of  a 
fort  at  Pemaquid,  and  the  House,  by  its  refusal  to  hold  a  con- 
ference, angered  the  Council ;  but  the  matter  ended  in  a  dead- 
lock, and  the  Court  was  finally  dissolved.3  Another  attempt 
was  made  in  the  spring  session,  but  to  no  effect ; 4  and  again 
hi  the  fall  the  House  not  only  refused  to  carry  out  the  com- 
mands, but  made  the  Pemaquid  question  one  of  the  principal 

1  Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.),  Ixx.  484.  For  the  correspondence  before 
Dudley's  arrival,  see  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vii.  678-682. 

1  Register  of  the  Privy  Council  (Ms.),  Anne,  i.  216. 

J  November  17-29,  1702,  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  vii.  347-357. 
See  also  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vii.  739-741. 

4  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  vii.  366. 


GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  95 

features  in  the  address  that  it  was  preparing  for  the  queen.1 
At  the  summer  session  of  1705  the  governor  again  urged  the 
question,  and  presented  a  letter  from  the  queen  directing  the 
House  to  make  some  appropriation  for  this  purpose;  but 
nothing  was  done.2  Dudley  had  to  confess  himself  beaten ; 
in  fact,  he  had  reported  a  year  before  that  he  was  "sorry 
nothing  that  could  be  said  would  move  them  from  a  stubborn 
resolved  temper,  which  has  possessed  the  Assembly,  that  they 
will  agree  to  nothing  wherein  they  may  show  their  obedience 
to  her  Majesty."3  So,  after  a  struggle  of  three  years,  the 
matter  was  dropped.4 

Dudley's  other  failure  to  carry  out  his  instructions  was  in 
another  inherited  dispute.  Bellomont  and  Phips  had  both 
been  instructed  to  have  the  assembly  fix  a  definite  salary  for 
the  governor  instead  of  forcing  him  to  depend  upon  its  ap- 
propriations.5  This  the  Court  refused  to  do;  but  Dudley, 
relying  upon  his  influence,  desired  a  special  instruction  upon 
that  subject,  and,  as  has  been  seen,  received  one.6  In  his 
first  speech  to  the  Court  he  pointed  out  that  Massachusetts 
was  the  only  province  where  some  stated  salary  was  not  settled 
on  the  governor,  and  urged  that  the  queen's  commands  be 
obeyed  and  a  settlement  made  at  once.  On  June  27  the 
House  made  him  a  present  of  five  hundred  pounds,  but  nothing 
was  said  about  a  settlement.7  In  the  fall  session  the  governor 

1  Ibid.  viii.  10-11. 

2  Council  Records  (Ms.),  iv.  146. 

3  Dudley  to  Nottingham,  April  21,  1704,  quoted  in  Palfrey's  History  of  New 
England,  iv.  291  note. 

4  A  summary  of  the  legislative  proceedings  on  this  question  is  in  Massa- 
chusetts Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  515-519. 

6  For  a  further  account  of  the  salary  dispute,  containing  extracts  from  the 
archives,  see  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  292-294,  339-341. 

a  Reprinted  ibid.  293. 

7  Ibid.  i.  498 ;  and  vii.  343,  ch.  20. 


96  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

renewed  his  application;  but  the  House  replied,  "It  is  not 
Convinient  (the  Circumstances  of  the  Province  Considered) 
to  State  Salaries,  but  to  allow  as  the  Great  and  General  Court 
shall  from  time  to  time  see  Necessary." *  The  Council  tried 
to  help  Dudley,  but  the  House  stood  firm  not  only  through 
Dudley's  administration  but  throughout  the  rest  of  the  colonial 
period.  Yet  Dudley  did  not  give  up  the  fight,  but  renewed 
his  application  at  the  next  session  with  no  better  result.  At 
the  September  session  of  1703  he  was  armed  with  a  special 
letter  from  the  queen  directing  the  Court  to  settle  "a  constant 
&  fixt  Allowance  to  the  Govern1."2  The  House  refused,  and 
sent  to  the  queen  a  long  letter  claiming  that  its  right  to 
grant  money  as  it  chose  was  derived  from  the  reign  of  Henry 
III.  "We  .  .  .  humbly  conceive,"  added  the  deputies, 
"that  the  Stating  of  Salaries  [is]  not  agreeable  to  her  Majesty's 
Interests  in  this  Province,  but  prejudicial  to  her  Majesty's 
good  Subjects." 3 

Dudley  did  not  neglect  to  present  his  plight  to  the  Board  of 
Trade,  which,  though  sympathizing  with  him,  did  not  see 
"what  more  can  be  done  at  the  present,"4  and  later  pointed 
out  that,  as  his  instructions  did  not  prevent  his  receiving 
presents,  he  might  so  regard  the  semiannual  grants  of  the 
General  Court.5  In  1704,  however,  Dudley  renewed  his 
application,  and  utilized  a  clause  in  the  last  letter  from  the 
Board  of  Trade  which  contained  this  distinct  threat:  "For 


1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  327,  November  2,  1702. 

*Ibid.  viii.  430,  September  i,  1703.  In  April  of  the  same  year  the  Privy 
Council  voted  to  send  such  a  letter,  "in  which  it  may  be  intimated  that 
neglect  will  oblige  the  Queen  to  take  such  remedies  as  shall  be  proper'' 
(Register  of  the  Privy  Council  (Ms.),  Anne,  ii.  156). 

3  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  10-11. 

4  Board  of  Trade,  Colonial  Entry  Book,  New  England  (Ms.),  40,  E.  208. 
8  Ibid.  E.  330. 


GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  97 

it  is  very  unreasonable  that  the  Assembly  of  Massachusetts 
Bay  should  expect  that  they  should  be  furnished  with  Stores 
of  War,  at  Her  Majesty's  expense,  while  they  of  all  the  col- 
onies in  America  alone  do  refuse  to  settle  a  salary  upon  Her 
Majesty's  Governour  and  other  Offices  there."  1  Even  this 
threat  had  no  effect  ;  and,  though  the  attempt  was  renewed 
in  1705,  the  House,  this  time  supported  by  the  Council,  refused 
to  make  any  settlement.2 

The  compensation  which  Dudley  received  as  governor  was 
five  hundred  pounds  each  year,  granted  in  two  appropriation 
bills.  Up  to  1708  it  was  customary  to  grant  three  hundred 
pounds  at  the  spring,  and  two  hundred  pounds  at  the  fall 
session  ;  but  in  that  year,  a  change  was  made  and  the  appro- 
priation was  evenly  divided.  In  like  manner,  the  salaries 
of  the  judges  and  of  all  the  officers  depended  not  on  any 
permanent  settlement,  but  on  the  votes  of  the  General 
Court. 

Though  Dudley  failed  to  gain  the  assent  of  the  Court  in 
these  two  instances,  yet  in  general,  he  was  able  to  carry  out 
his  policies.  His  ability  to  do  this  depended  upon  various 
causes.  Throughout  nearly  the  whole  of  his  administration 
he  was  aided  by  the  fact  that  England  and  France  were  at 
war,  and  that  as  a  corollary  the  English  and  French  colonies 
were  fighting  against  each  other.  As  will  be  shown  later, 
Dudley  had  great  influence  among  the  Indians,  and  possessed 
means  of  gaining  information  which  enabled  him  sometimes 
to  forestall  an  impending  attack.  His  plans  for  the  defence 
of  New  England  were  sound,  and,  with  the  expeditions  that 


*  Records  of  Ike  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  153,  September  12,  1705.  The 
whole  question  is  best  followed  in  A  Collection  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Great  and 
General  Court  .  .  .  for  fixing  a  Salary  on  the  Governour  (Boston,  1729). 


98  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

he  sent  out  against  the  French  colonies,  received  the  enthu- 
siastic support  of  the  colonists.  Indeed,  he  may  be  said  to 
have  raised  their  expectations  too  high ;  for  the  failure  of  his 
expeditions,  through  no  fault  of  his  own,  reacted  against  him 
almost  to  the  extent  of  causing  his  removal.  But  his  policy 
as  a  war  governor  was  popular,  and  even  his  enemies  were 
forced  to  depend  upon  him  for  their  defence.  Thus,  as  the 
Court  found  that  he  was  necessary  to  its  safety,  its  opposition 
to  him  declined,  and  during  the  last  years  of  his  administra- 
tion he  usually  found  little  difficulty  in  securing  the  adoption 
of  his  measures.  As  a  result  of  the  continual  warfare,  Dudley 
had  it  in  his  power  to  reward  his  supporters  with  offices  and 
contracts.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  contracts  for  the 
army  were  improperly  used;  indeed,  not  the  governor,  but 
the  General  Court  appointed  the  commissary  general.  A 
remark  of  Dudley's,  however,  quoted  by  Sewall,1  gives  the 
impression  that  some  of  the  charges  in  the  "Deplorable  State 
of  New  England"  were  not  altogether  without  foundation, 
and  that  the  governor  had  used  military  commissions  to 
strengthen  his  support. 

Aside  from  these  dubious  methods,  Dudley  was  able,  by 
his  personal  tact  and  charm,  to  win  over  more  than  one  of  his 
most  bitter  opponents,  and  sometimes,  by  keeping  an  open 
house  and  setting  a  lavish  table,  to  gain  the  support  of  the 
country  members.  There  is  little  necessity  for  believing  all 
the  charges  against  him  that  were  framed  by  the  colonial 
politicians  in  the  heat  of  conflict.  Among  a  certain  class, 
his  personal  popularity  aided  him;  his  family  connections 
assured  him  the  support  of  some  of  the  influential  men  in 
the  colony;  and  it  is  evident  that  he  was  the  leader  of  a 

1  Diary,  June  13,  1712,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  $th 
Series,  vi.  351. 


GOVERNOR  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  99 

party  on  whose  support  he  could  rely.  He  was,  moreover, 
a  politician,  skilled  in  parliamentary  tactics,  experienced 
both  in  Massachusetts  and  in  England;  and  thus  from  a 
combination  of  influences  he  was  able  to  force  a  reluctant 
and  even  hostile  Assembly  to  carry  out  his  policies. 


CHAPTER  VI 

JOSEPH  DUDLEY  CAPTAIN-GENERAL  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 
MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS 

IT  may  well  be  believed  that  William  III  consented  to  the 
appointment  of  Dudley  because  of  the  threatening  state  of 
affairs  in  Europe.  The  death  of  Charles  II  of  Spain  and  the 
prospect  of  the  union  of  that  country  with  France  rendered 
ineffective  the  advantage  which  William  had  gained  in  the 
previous  war.  The  question  of  the  Spanish  succession, 
settled  by  placing  the  grandson  of  Louis  XIV  on  the  throne, 
made  war  between  England  and  France  inevitable,  and  it 
hardly  needed  the  recognition  of  the  son  of  James  II  as  king 
of  England  to  bring  on  an  immediate  conflict.  Taught  by 
the  experience  of  previous  wars,  both  countries  saw  that  the 
American  colonies  would  be  involved  in  the  struggle,  and 
both  countries  made  plans  for  their  defence.  Lord  Cutts 
urged  the  Duke  of  Marlborough,  commander-in-chief  of  the 
British  forces,  to  request  the  appointment  of  Dudley  for  mili- 
tary reasons.  William  Blathwayt,  who  was  highly  regarded 
by  the  king,  as  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Trade  and  clerk  of 
the  Privy  Council,  seconded  the  nomination  of  Dudley  as 
being  a  man  likely  to  gain  the  assent  of  the  colonists  to  the 
military  plans  of  England.  The  experience  of  confiding  the 
military  operations  in  the  colonies  to  Englishmen  had  shown 
England  that  the  colonists  were  unwilling  to  follow  such  lead  : 
Andros  and  Bellomont  had  not  fulfilled  her  hopes,  while,  on 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  101 

the  other  hand,  Phips,  a  native,  had  gained  Port  Royal. 
Hence  it  seemed  possible  that  in  the  present  crisis,  a  colonial- 
born,  rather  than  an  English  governor,  would  have  more 
chance  of  success.  Although  Dudley  bore  a  military  title, 
he  had  had  practically  no  experience  in  military  service,  and 
it  can  hardly  be  believed  that  such  was  expected  of  him  by 
the  authorities  in  England.  He  had,  however,  had  long  expe- 
rience in  dealing  with  Indian  affairs,  and  had  proved  an  ex- 
tremely energetic  administrator  both  in  Massachusetts  and 
in  New  York.  He  was  a  shrewd  politician,  skilled  in  the 
management  of  men  and  assemblies,  and  his  supporters  in 
England  relied  upon  his  abilities  to  gain  the  cooperation  of 
Massachusetts  for  the  plans  of  the  crown.  It  was  these  quali- 
ties, rather  than  his  military  experience,  that  were  particularlv 
urged  by  them. 

Indeed,  the  position  of  Massachusetts  fully  justified  the 
appointment  of  an  able  Indian  negotiator  and  shrewd  parlia- 
mentarian. Until  England  could  detach  a  force  large  enough 
to  conquer  both  Canada  and  the  seaboard  colony  of  Acadia. 
Massachusetts,  though  occasionally  striking  at  the  French,  was 
obliged  to  secure  her  frontiers  by  controlling  the  Indians 
either  through  alliances  or  through  threats  of  force.  Of  all 
the  English  colonial  governors  the  governor  of  Massachusetts 
occupied  the  most  difficult  position.  French  expansion  had 
not  yet  become  dangerous  in  the  Ohio  valley,  and  Pennsyl- 
vania and  Virginia  were  out  of  the  danger  zone ;  Rhode  Island 
and  Connecticut  were  safely  sheltered  behind  Massachusetts 
and  New  Hampshire,  and  were  thus  able  to  turn  their  energies 
to  their  own  domestic  concerns.  The  burden  of  the  war  fell 
upon  New  York  and  Massachusetts.  The  governor  of  New 
York,  it  is  true,  was  obliged  to  protect  his  northern  frontier, 
which  was  accessible  by  the  easy  water  route  of  the  Richelieu 


102  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

River  and  Lake  Champlain ;  but  the  governor  of  Massachu- 
setts, who  was  at  the  same  time  responsible  for  the  safety  of 
the  scattered  settlements  in  New  Hampshire  and  Maine,  was 
threatened  alike  by  war  parties  from  Canada  on  the  north, 
and  by  privateers  from  Port  Royal  on  the  east,  which  by  the 
treaty  of  Ryswick  had  been  restored  to  France.  It  was  mani- 
festly impossible  for  a  single  military  leader  to  cover  such  a 
wide  frontier ;  hence,  until  the  tune  should  come  for  striking 
directly  at  the  seat  of  the  French  power,  the  activities  of  the 
governor  of  Massachusetts  were  rightly  confined  to  negotiat- 
ing with  the  Indians,  encouraging  local  resistance,  and  occa- 
sionally fitting  out  expeditions  to  make  a  demonstration. 
Above  all,  he  must  so  lead  the  General  Court  that  it  would  be 
willing  to  second  any  plan  that  England  might  adopt,  and  be 
ready  to  join  in  a  combined  attack  upon  either  Port  Royal  or 
Quebec. 

The  difficulties  of  the  governor  of  Massachusetts  were 
further  increased  by  the  attitude  of  New  York.  In  order 
to  protect  its  own  frontier  against  the  invasions  of  the 
Iroquois  and  at  the  same  time  to  gain  and  enjoy  their  trade, 
New  York  made  a  treaty  of  peace  and  friendship  with  the 
Five  Nations.  Considered  solely  as  a  measure  of  defence  in 
order  to  utilize  the  Indians  as  a  buffer  against  the  raids  from 
Canada,  this  step  might  have  been  justified;  but,  although 
New  York  enjoyed  the  trade  and  friendship  of  the  Five  Na- 
tions, she  could  not  control  their  policy,  and  was  unable  to 
prevent  them  from  making  a  similar  treaty  with  the  French. 
This  neutrality  of  the  Iroquois  was  so  prized  by  both  the 
French  and  the  English  that  it  brought  about  a  virtual  peace 
between  Canada  and  New  York,  which  lasted  for  five  years 
of  Dudley's  administration.  Again  and  again  Dudley  and 
the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  wrote  to  New  York  to 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  103 

urge  the  Indians  to  hostilities  against  the  French;  but  the 
people  of  New  York,  recognizing  the  value  of  the  protection 
that  came  to  them  from  the  neutrality  of  the  Iroquois,  refused 
to  comply.1  Hence,  while  Massachusetts  found  her  northern 
frontier  ravaged  and  the  Indians  her  enemies,  New  York  was 
safe  and  escaped  many  of  the  horrors  of  the  war. 

To  the  French,  the  value  of  this  neutrality  was  also  clear. 
Secure  from  Indian  attacks  on  the  side  of  New  York,  they 
could  throw  all  their  forces  against  the  eastern  frontier  of 
Maine,  New  Hampshire,  and  Massachusetts.  The  advan- 
tages of  the  position  were  recognized  both  at  Paris  and  at 
Quebec,  and  frequent  letters  and  instructions  were  sent  to 
the  commanders  directing  them  never  to  stir  the  Indians  of 
New  York  to  war,  never  to  allow  the  Indians  on  the  eastern 
frontier  to  be  neutral,  and  to  concentrate  all  their  energies 
against  the  people  of  Boston.  In  this  design  they  received 
more  than  purely  passive  aid  from  New  York ;  for  the  Iroquois 
allowed  war  parties  to  pass  unmolested  through  their  territory 
on  their  way  east,  and  kept  the  northern  and  eastern  tribes 
supplied  with  arms  and  ammunition.  Thus  secure  on  the 


'In  1704,  Dudley,  acting  in  cooperation  with  Governor  Winthrop  of  Con- 
necticut, attempted  to  urge  the  New  York  Indians  to  war  against  the  French. 
Assuming  the  consent  of  Lord  Cornbury,  Governor  of  New  York,  they  de- 
spatched a  joint  commission.  Cornbury,  however,  far  from  aiding  the  com- 
missioners, took  great  offence,  ostensibly  against  Livingstone,  one  of  the  com- 
missioners; but  it  is  likely  that  he  was  influenced  by  other  than  personal 
reasons.  Any  outside  interference  would  weaken  his  control  over  the  Five 
Nations,  any  hostile  act  would  endanger  the  much-valued  neutrality  of  the 
Indians,  and  open  war  would  break  up  the  lucrative  trade.  He  therefore 
refused  to  allow  the  Indians  to  take  a  hand  in  the  struggle;  and  without  the 
assent  of  the  governor  of  New  York  the  New  England  commissioners  could 
do  nothing.  See  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  100.  The  correspond- 
ence is  given  in  the  Winthrop  papers,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Col- 
lections, 6th  Series,  iii.  261  et  seq.;  it  is  also  printed,  with  notes  from  the  Council 
records,  in  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  449-455. 


104  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH   DUDLEY 

New  York  frontier,  the  French  poured  expedition  after  expe- 
dition into  New  England. 

An  opportunity  to  pursue  a  similar  policy  came  to  Dudley 
and  Massachusetts  in  1705.  The  unfortunate  captives  of 
the  Indian  raids  were  offered  for  ransom,  until,  as  Dudley 
reported,  "the  Indians  had  a  better  trade  of  taking  Prisoners 
than  hunting  for  Beavers."1  At  considerable  risk  to  his 
reputation  he  refused  to  ransom  any  more,  but  offered  a  series 
of  articles  providing  for  a  mutual  exchange  of  English  and 
French  prisoners.2  In  return,  Vaudreuil  offered,  with  the 
consent  of  the  king,  a  treaty  of  neutrality  between  Canada, 
Acadia,  and  New  England  which  would  put  an  end  to  the 
hostilities  of  both  the  French  and  the  Indians.3  These  arti- 
cles, however,  went  beyond  a  mere  neutrality  convention,  for 
by  them  the  governors  agreed  that  no  vessel  of  one  colony 
should  fish  in  the  waters  of  the  other.  This  provision  was 
manifestly  more  favorable  to  the  French  than  to  the  English, 
and  Dudley  would  have  been  justified  in  refusing  to  agree  to 
the  proposed  terms  on  this  ground  alone ;  but  Vaudreuil  went 
even  farther,  and  offered  these  articles  only  on  condition  that 
Lord  Cornbury,  as  well  as  Dudley,  should  ratify  them  before 
the  last  of  February.  The  articles  were  laid  before  the 
General  Court,  and  a  draft  of  the  governor's  letter  to  Cornbury 
was  approved;  but  four  days  later  a  resolution  was  passed 
condemning  the  proposed  treaty.4 

Dudley,  however,  dragged  out  the  negotiations,  not  with 
any  intention  of  agreeing  to  such  terms  or  because  he  felt  the 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  13,  Q.  37. 

*  Ibid.  Q.  38. 

1  Ibid.  Q.  39 ;  also  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  ix.  770.  Massachusetts 
Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  541,  collates  the  translation  of  the  treaty  given  in  the 
New  York  Documents  with  the  French  in  the  Collection  de  Manuscrits. 

4  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  149. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  105 

need  of  a  treaty,  —  for  he  boasted  to  the  Board  of  Trade  that 
with  a  little  help  from  England  he  could  "remove  him  [Vau- 
dreuil]  &  all  the  french  from  Canada  &  Port  Royal,"  l  —  but 
rather  for  the  sake  of  the  tranquillity  which  the  delay  tempo- 
rarily gave  to  the  frontiers.  Moreover,  he  utilized  this  pre- 
tence to  gain  information  concerning  the  position  of  the 
French.  Thus  in  1705,  young  William  Dudley,  son  of  the 
governor,  and  Colonel  Samuel  Vetch,  who  were  sent  to  nego- 
tiate with  Vaudreuil,  prolonged  the  negotiations  and  gave 
great  offence  to  some  French  officers  by  studying  the  river, 
and  even,  it  is  asserted,  measuring  the  fortifications.2  In  like 
manner  at  a  later  date,  Pontchartrain  expressed  his  approval 
of  the  policy  which  Vaudreuil  had  adopted  of  giving  the  people 
of  Boston  "to  understand  that,  if  war  continued  between  both 
Colonies,  it  was  solely  the  fault  of  the  Council  of  Boston ;  so 
as  to  be  able  in  this  way  to  create  division  between  the  people 
and  the  Council."3  This  rather  sharp  game  of  diplomacy 
brought  little  advantage  to  either  side;  for,  although  Vetch 
gained  some  little  knowledge  of  the  St.  Lawrence,  the  great 
expedition  of  1711  was  wrecked  in  spite  of  his  presence.  Nor 
did  the  French  succeed  in  creating  discord;  for  Dudley  was 
always  able  to  find  and  equip  troops  for  his  numerous  expedi- 
tions, and  his  plans  for  the  war  were  accepted  both  in  England 
and  in  Massachusetts. 

The  news  of  the  declaration  of  war  reached  Massachusetts 
a  few  days  after  Dudley  landed,  and  he  at  once  summoned  the 
Court  and  outlined  the  scheme  which,  as  captain-general, 
charged  with  the  defence  of  both  New  Hampshire  and  Massa- 
chusetts, he  pursued  consistently  throughout  his  administra- 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  13,  Q.  37. 

2  Charlevoix,  History  of  New  France,  v.  1 76. 

1  June  6,  1708,  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  ix.  813. 


io6  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

tion.  Some  portions  of  this  policy  were  dictated  by  the 
English  ministry ;  others  were  plans  that  had  been  tried  in  the 
previous  war  and  were  sure  to  win  favor  with  the  people; 
other  ideas  were  Dudley's  own,  which  he  was  especially  chosen 
to  carry  out.  It  is  much  to  his  credit  that  he  was  able  to 
weld  all  these  plans  into  one  harmonious  scheme,  which  in 
general  he  imposed  upon  New  England. 

The  defensive  features  of  his  plan  were  partly  supplied  by 
England,  and  were  partly  the  result  of  his  own  experience. 
The  English  government  was  bent  upon  defending  New  Eng- 
land by  frontier  posts,  —  by  forts  at  Piscataqua  and  Pema- 
quid,  and  the  castle  at  Boston.  Although  Dudley  made  a 
special  journey  to  view  the  ruins  at  Pemaquid,  and  although 
he  repeatedly  urged  the  Court  to  take  some  action,  he  was, 
as  has  been  shown,  obliged  to  report  to  the  Board  his  failure 
in  this  direction.1  One  reason  for  his  failure  lay  in  the  general 
disinclination  of  the  Massachusetts  Court  to  engage  in  expen- 
sive operations  so  far  from  its  own  borders,  and  probably,  too, 
in  a  genuine  feeling  that  the  fort  at  Pemaquid  would  not 
serve  as  "any  bridle  to  the  enemy  or  barier  to  our  frontiers, 
being  out  of  the  usual  route  of  the  Indians";2  but  Dudley's 
path  was  not  made  any  easier  by  the  want  of  tact  displayed 
by  the  engineer  Romer,  who  was  sent  over  by  the  English 
government  to  repair  the  fortifications.  Romer's  plans  called 
for  a  large  expenditure  of  money,  larger  than  the  Court  felt  able 
to  contribute,  and  his  overbearing  manner  was  so  irritating  to 
the  colonists  that  they  took  every  opportunity  to  thwart  him. 
Feeling  the  slights  put  upon  him,  Romer  frequently  appealed 
to  Dudley,  and  sometimes  directly  to  England,  for  support.3 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  n,  M.  13  and  N.  13. 

2  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  ii.  138. 

'Bodleian  Library,  Rawlinson  Mss.,  A.  272,  f.  215,  217,  218,  230;  Massa- 
chusetts Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  346. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  107 

The  governor  furthered  his  plans  as  far  as  he  could,  and  had 
the  castle  at  Boston  strengthened ;  but  he  was  unable  to  force 
the  Court  to  adopt  the  measure  most  insisted  on  by  the 
English  government  and  fortify  Pemaquid. 

In  other  features  of  his  policy,  Dudley  was  more  successful. 
He  gained  information  of  the  impending  Indian  raids,  and  was 
frequently  able  to  warn  the  threatened  locality,  and  some- 
times even  to  forestall  the  blow.  He  organized  a  snowshoe 
brigade,  and  kept  a  fourth  part  of  the  militia  of  the  colony 
ready  to  march  upon  twenty-four  hours'  notice.1  He  also 
sent  out  frequent  scouting  parties  to  protect  the  frontiers. 
Finally,  he  was  a  constant  and  successful  beggar.  Before  he 
sailed  from  England,  he  obtained  an  order  from  the  Privy 
Council  allowing  him  to  import  powder ; 2  and  he  seldom 
failed  to  include  in  his  reports  a  request  for  additional  sup- 
plies and  stores,  which  were  generally  sent  according  to  his 
desire. 

In  addition  to  the  purely  military  plans  for  defence,  Dudley 
evolved  a  policy  from  which  much  might  have  been  expected 
had  he  been  adequately  supported  by  the  General  Court. 
Early  in  July,  1702,  on  his  journey  to  Pemaquid,  he  held  a 
conference  with  the  chiefs  of  the  Maine  Indians  at  which  an 
agreement  was  made  that  kept  the  Indians  of  that  region  at 
peace  during  the  first  year  of  the  war.3  His  hope  of  holding 
them  to  the  English  rested  upon  a  plan  to  win  their  trade,4 
and  to  neutralize  the  efforts  of  the  Jesuit  priests  by  sending 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  12,  M.  37. 

2  Register  of  the  Privy  Council  (Ms.),  Anne,  i.  54. 

a  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  n,  L.  23.  "I  have  from  the 
Assembly  their  Compliments  and  addresses  of  thanks,  for  ...  the  peace 
hitherto  with  the  Indians  which  was  more  than  they  expected  and  depended 
wholly  upon  my  personall  knowledge  of  them  and  travail  to  pemaquid  to  meet 
them,  and  that  is  all  I  have  of  them  to  my  support."  —  Ibid.  L.  23. 

<  Ibid.  L.  5. 


io8  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

English  missionaries  to  them.1  Again  in  the  following  year, 
Dudley  and  some  of  his  Council  made  a  journey  to  strengthen 
the  peace  which  had  been  made.  At  Casco  he  met  the  chiefs 
from  almost  all  the  tribes  in  Maine,  and  negotiated  what  he 
hoped  would  be  a  permanent  peace  with  them ;  but  when  the 
visitors  learned  that  the  salute  fired  by  the  Indians  was  a 
volley  of  deadly  musket-balls,  and  that  a  party  of  French  and 
Indians  were  on  the  way  to  seize  them,  they  had  reason  to 
doubt  the  efficacy  of  the  treaty.2 

Although  Dudley's  plan  was  not  permanently  successful, 
yet  his  idea  was  a  correct  one,  as  the  experience  of  New  York 
showed ;  but  in  executing  his  schemes  he  offended  the  General 
Court  to  such  an  extent  that  successful  accomplishment  was 
impossible.  He  denied  the  Court  any  share  in  the  appointing 
of  commissioners  to  deal  with  the  Indians,  and  carried  on  nego- 
tiations on  his  own  responsibility.  In  so  doing,  he  was 
technically  within  his  rights;  but  this  proper  exercise  of  his 
prerogative  was  viewed  with  such  jealousy  by  the  people  that 
they  refused  to  adopt  his  plans  for  gaining  and  retaining  the 
trade  of  the  Indians,  and  thus  lost  the  opportunity  of  winning 
their  good  will  and  interest,  which  might  have  been  sufficient 
to  keep  them  at  peace. 

The  well-directed  policy  of  the  French  was  more  successful 
in  dealing  with  the  Indians  than  were  the  divided  councils  of 
Massachusetts.  French  emissaries  were  busy  in  Maine,  and 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  12,  M.  10.     "And  yet  ... 
we  shall  lose  them  [the  Indians]  if  we  have  not  Ministers  amongst  them  to 
defeat  the  French  Missionaries  to  whom  they  are  infinitely  Biggotted.  .  .  ." 
(extract  of  a  letter  from  Governor  Dudley  sent  to  the  Board  of  Trade  by  the 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  preserved  in  its  manuscript  Letters, 

ii-  43)- 

2  Penhallow  (History  of  the  Wars  of  New  England  with  the  Eastern  Indians, 
1859,  pp.  16-18)  gives  an  account  of  this  conference,  at  which  he  was  a  par- 
ticipant. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  109 

two  months  after  the  treaty  at  Casco  Bay,  parties  of  Indians 
led  by  French  officers  fell  upon  the  outlying  settlements. 
Wells,  Winter  Harbor,  Saco,  and  other  hamlets  were  attacked, 
and  the  majority  of  the  inhabitants  either  killed  or  taken 
captive.  In  the  following  winter  the  western  frontier  of 
Massachusetts  was  invaded.  This  attack  was  not  altogether 
unexpected,  for  Dudley  had  received  warnings  from  Cornbury 
that  an  expedition  was  aimed  at  Deerfield  and  had  sent  rein- 
forcements to  that  town.  Nevertheless,  a  band  of  French 
and  Indians  captured  the  town,  massacred  about  fifty  of  the 
inhabitants,  and  set  out  for  Canada  with  over  a  hundred 
captives.  But  Deerfield  was  not  the  only  town  to  suffer. 
Every  frontier  settlement  must  expect  a  similar  fate,  and 
prompt  measures  for  defence  and  reprisal  were  taken.  Troops 
were  stationed  in  the  most  exposed  localities,  patrols  went 
from  town  to  town  constantly  on  the  alert  for  war  parties, 
small  bodies  of  troops  were  sent  to  ravage  the  territory  occu- 
pied by  the  Indians,  and  a  large  bounty  was  offered  for  Indian 
scalps.1  The  war,  if  it  may  be  called  a  war,  was  little  more 
than  a  series  of  raids  and  counter  raids  conducted  on  each  side 
with  unnecessary  cruelty.2 

Dudley's  offensive  steps  were  vigorous  and  promptly  taken. 
Under  his  lead,  measures  were  passed  by  the  Council  to  en- 
courage privateers  and  to  forestall  any  attacks  of  the  French.3 
He  was  in  close  touch  with  the  Indians  on  the  north  and  knew 
that  the  French  were  tampering  with  their  fidelity ; 4  and, 

1  According   to  Penhallow  (History  of  the  Wars  of  New  England,  etc.,  48) 
this  was  an  extremely  expensive  method  of  making  war,  as  each  Indian  taken 
cost  the  colony  £1000  at  least. 

2  For  this  warfare  the  Reverend  Solomon  Stoddard  of  Northampton  urged 
the  employment  of  dogs,  of  which  the  Indians  had  the  greatest  terror.     See 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  4th  Series,  ii.  235. 

3  Council  Records  (Ms.),  iii-  338,  350. 

4  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  vii.  333. 


no  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

realizing  that  the  struggle  was  to  be  a  long  and  protracted 
one,  in  which  all  the  other  colonies  would  be  involved,  he 
forced  the  unwilling  Court  to  allow  him  to  aid  the  neighbor- 
ing colonies  of  New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island, 
and  New  York  if  occasion  should  arise  during  its  recess. l  In 
so  doing,  he  gave  evidence  of  a  broader  spirit,  which  looked 
beyond  the  interests  of  Massachusetts  to  the  welfare  of  the 
other  English  colonies ;  but  he  also  offended  the  jealous  Assem- 
bly, which  saw  in  his  act  but  one  of  his  schemes  to  aggrandize 
himself  at  the  expense  of  the  people  and  an  example  of  his 
ambition  which  was  ready  to  sacrifice  their  interests  for  his 
own  advancement. 

The  first  offensive  operation  on  a  large  scale  was  undertaken 
in  1704.  In  the  previous  year,  the  House,  realizing  that  the 
chief  source  of  danger  lay  in  the  French  possession  of  Port 
Royal,  voted  that  a  volunteer  expedition  be  sent  against  that 
fortress.  This  action  agreed  in  part  with  the  plans  of  the 
governor ;  for,  although  he  could  not  countenance  an  expedi- 
tion directly  against  Port  Royal,  the  matter  being  still  before 
the  queen  for  consideration,  he  hoped  to  utilize  this  expedition 
against  some  of  the  more  immediate  enemies  of  the  colony, 
the  French  and  Indians  of  Maine.  He  therefore  fell  in  with 
the  suggestion  of  the  Court  and  promoted  the  expedition  with 
all  his  power.2  He  asked  aid  from  the  other  colonies,  but  suc- 
ceeded in  gaining  only  a  hundred  Indians  from  Connecticut.3 
Even  these  were  grudgingly  furnished4  and  were  to  be  paid 
and  equipped  by  Massachusetts  and  to  be  used  only  to  garri- 
son the  northern  posts  of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire. 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  vii.  348. 

2  Speech  of  Dudley,  September  i,  1703,  ibid.  429. 

3  Dudley  to  Fitz-John  Winthrop  and  replies,  December  24,  1703,  to  Feb- 
ruary 27,  1704,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii. 
163  el  seq.  4  Winthrop  to  Ashurst,  June  5,  1704,  ibid.  212. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  in 

The  leader  chosen  was  Major  Benjamin  Church,  who  had 
been  a  noted  Indian  fighter  in  King  Philip's  War.1  Although 
Church  was  over  sixty  years  of  age  and  of  such  unwieldy 
bulk  that  it  required  the  assistance  of  a  private  soldier  to  help 
him  over  the  obstructions  of  the  trails,  he  was  a  popular  man, 
and  by  his  popularity  drew  a  mixed  mob  of  volunteers  into 
the  service.  Church  begged  hard  to  be  allowed  to  attack 
Port  Royal;  but  this  Dudley  forbade,  directing  him  to  pro- 
ceed against  the  Indians  in  Maine. 

A  mixed  force  of  about  seven  hundred  men  sailed  to  Castine, 
where  they  killed  or  captured  the  inhabitants  of  the  fort,  did 
some  little  damage,  were  guilty  of  murdering  some  settlers 
who  had  already  surrendered,  and  then  sailed  for  Grand  Pre 
on  the  Bay  of  Fundy.  Here  they  met  with  some  slight  resist- 
ance, but  were  able  to  burn  the  houses,  destroy  the  crops,  and 
do  considerable  damage.  It  was  to  the  credit  of  Church  that 
he  restrained  the  Indians  under  his  command,  and  contented 
himself  with  taking  off  only  so  many  of  the  inhabitants  as 
were  needed  for  the  purpose  of  exchange  for  the  captives  of 
the  Indian  raids.  Thus  far  the  expedition  was  following  a 
liberal  construction  of  the  governor's  plan ;  but,  at  a  distance 
from  Dudley,  Church  now  decided  to  try  a  bold  stroke  on  his 
own  account  and  attempt  to  carry  out  his  cherished  design  of 
making  an  attack  upon  Port  Royal.  Aside  from  the  question 
of  obedience  of  orders,  the  expedition  was  bound  to  prove 
futile ;  for  Port  Royal,  warned  by  the  fate  of  the  other  settle- 
ments, was  strongly  reinforced  and  fairly  well  fortified,  and 
Church  had  only  about  four  hundred  men  available  for  land- 
ing. As  such  a  small  force  would  necessarily  prove  ineffec- 
tive, the  officers  and  captains  of  the  fleet  decided  that  a  landing 

1  Church's  own  account  is  found  in  Thomas  Church's  History  of  Philip's 
War,  1829,  243-286. 


H2  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

was  out  of  the  question ;  and  after  bombastically  summon- 
ing Port  Royal  to  surrender,  Church  was  forced  to  sail  for 
Boston. 

The  governor  reaped  a  just  reward  for  his  want  of  frankness. 
He  had  utilized  the  popularity  of  Church  and  the  enthusiasm 
excited  by  the  prospect  of  an  expedition  against  Port  Royal 
for  other  ends.  A  better  leader  than  Church  might  have 
excited  more  terror  among  the  Indians  in  Maine ;  but,  as  it 
was,  little  harm  had  been  done  there  and  none  to  Port  Royal, 
while  the  resources  of  the  colony  had  been  frittered  away. 
At  best  the  expedition  had  been  a  futile  one,  but  some  of  the 
critics  went  even  farther,  and  insinuated  that  Port  Royal  had 
been  spared  to  serve  as  a  depot  for  the  illegal  trade  to  which, 
as  some  believed,  the  governor  was  a  party.  Cotton  Mather, 
growing  cold  toward  Dudley  and  repenting  his  share  in  helping 
him  win  his  appointment,  thus  summed  up  the  hostile  criti- 
cism: "When  Church  went  with  his  forces  to  Port-royal  he 
could  easily  have  taken  the  fort,  or  done  anything  in  the  world, 
but  the  reason  which  he  has  often  given  for  his  not  doing  it  is, 
because  you  absolutely  forbad  him,  you  peremptorily  for- 
bad him.  The  cause  you  assigned  was,  because  the  matter 
had  been  laid  before  the  queen,  and  the  queen  had  sent  over 
no  orders  for  it,  and  though  the  queen  had  sent  no  orders  we 
send  with  a  pretence  to  take  it  —  But  the  story  grows  now  too 
black  a  story  for  me  to  meddle  with  it  —  The  expedition 
baffled  —  The  fort  never  so  much  as  demanded  —  An  eternal 
gravestone  laid  on  our  buried  captives  —  A  nest  of  hornets 
provoked  to  fly  out  against  us  —  A  shame  cast  upon  us  that 
will  never  be  forgotten  —  I  dare  not,  I  cannot  meddle  with 
these  mysteries."  1 

After  the  attack  upon  Deerfield  Dudley  began  to  negotiate 

1  January  20,  1707,  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  ii.  135  note. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  113 

for  the  liberation  of  the  captives.  He  wrote  several  letters  to 
Vaudreuil  protesting  against  the  harsh  treatment  of  the  English 
prisoners,  threatening  reprisals,  and,  after  the  Church  expedi- 
tion, suggesting  the  possibility  of  an  exchange  of  prisoners.1 
To  these  Vaudreuil  replied,  denying  the  charges  of  cruelty, 
accusing  the  English  of  murdering  in  cold  blood  prisoners  who 
had  surrendered,  and  asserting  that  the  French  had  learned  from 
the  English  the  practice  of  paying  the  Indians  for  the  scalps 
of  their  enemies.  His  letter  also  contained  a  slur  upon  Dud- 
ley's authority  which  long  rankled  in  the  governor's  mind  : 
"If  you  were  the  sole  ruler  in  New  England  as  I  am  here,  I 
would  not  have  hesitated  to  accept  your  word  and  it  would 
also  have  been  a  pleasure  to  me  to  return  all  your  prisoners 
.  .  .  but  as  you  have  a  council,  which  is  often  divided  in 
opinion,  and  where  you  have  nothing  more  than  your  vote, 
you  ought  not  to  take  it  ill  that  I  must  have  assurances  for  the 
return  of  the  prisoners  coming  to  me,  the  more  so  because  on 
my  side,  being  the  sole  master,  I  am  always  in  a  position  to 
keep  my  word."2  Nevertheless,  Vaudreuil  sent  the  Sieur  de 
Courtemanche  with  instructions  to  negotiate  for  a  mutual 
exchange  of  prisoners  without  regard  to  numbers,  particularly 
for  the  return  of  one  Baptiste,  "  without  which  there  will  be 
no  exchange."  This  Baptiste  was  a  border  ruffian  who  plun- 
dered either  side  as  it  seemed  most  profitable,  and  who  had 
been  captured  by  the  English  in  1702  while  he  was  operating 
with  the  French.3  The  colonists  claimed  that  as  a  renegade 
British  subject  and  pirate,  Baptiste  should  not  be  released 
with  the  other  prisoners  of  war ;  but  the  General  Court  agreed 

1  These  letters  are  translated  from  the  Collection  de  Manuscrits,  ii.  410  el 
seq.,  and  printed  in  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  497  et  seq.  2  Ibid. 

3  For  the  details  of  the  capture,  see  the  petition  of  John  Harraden  in  Massa- 
chusetts Archives  (Ms.),  Ixii.  438,  printed  in  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves, 
viii.  278. 


114  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

with  Dudley  and  advised  him  to  release  Baptiste  if  the  ex- 
change could  be  effected  hi  no  other  way.1 

Dudley,  however,  sought  to  gain  from  Courtemanche  his 
consent  to  the  exchange  of  some  of  the  prisoners,  not  including 
Baptiste,  and  in  this  way  to  keep  the  negotiation  open.  To 
this  proposal  Courtemanche  consented,  either  in  violation  of 
his  instructions  or  because  he  had  orders  which  he  did  not 
make  public.  Doubtless  both  Dudley  and  Courtemanche 
were  inclined  to  continue  the  negotiations  since  a  cartel  of 
exchange  of  prisoners  was  executed  by  the  governors  of  the 
Leeward  Islands  and  Martinique.2  At  all  events,  even  in 
spite  of  a  petition  from  some  of  the  Boston  merchants,3  the 
Court  authorized  Dudley  to  prolong  the  negotiations  even  if 
he  should  be  obliged  to  surrender  Baptiste.  The  governor 
sent  his  son  William  and  Samuel  Vetch  to  Quebec  with  a 
proposal  for  the  exchange  of  prisoners  (which  has  unfortunately 
been  lost)  and  a  letter  from  Dudley  to  Vaudreuil.  In  the 
letter  Dudley  took  the  opportunity  to  answer  the  slights  that 
Vaudreuil  had  put  upon  him.  "You  go  too  far  hi  your 
letters,"  said  he,  "when  you  speak  of  the  command  that  I 
have  here  as  if  it  were  not  equal  to  your  own.  I  have  in  this 
place  all  the  just  and  reasonable  power  than  an  English  gover- 
nor could  wish,  and  find  a  correspondingly  just  and  reasonable 
obedience ;  although  by  the  grace  of  God  the  number  of  my 
people  exceeds  that  of  yours  tenfold.  —  the  thing  which  ordi- 
narily constitutes  the  difficulty  of  government." 4 

1  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  120-121,  chs.  13,  15;  Council  Records 
(Ms.),  viii.  128. 

2  Printed  in  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  482. 

3  Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.),  Ixxi.  152,  printed  in  Massachusetts  Acts  and 
Resolves,  viii.  511. 

4  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  513,  translated  from   Collection  de 
Manuscriis,  ii.  435. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  115 

On  November  21  Vetch  and  William  Dudley  returned,  bring- 
ing not  merely  a  project  for  the  exchange  of  prisoners,  but  the 
draft  of  a  treaty  of  neutrality.  This  was  probably  quite 
different  from  Dudley's  proposals ;  it  was  not  what  he  antici- 
pated, and,  as  has  been  seen,  was  not  accepted.  Thereafter 
the  exchange  of  prisoners  was  carried  on  by  negotiation  for 
individual  cases,  and  no  general  treaty  was  made  until  the 
end  of  the  war.  Dudley  kept  these  negotiations  in  his  own 
hands.  The  messengers  were  his  intimate  friends,  and, 
though  admirably  suited  for  the  occasion,  did  not  possess  the 
confidence  of  the  colonists;  hence  it  soon  began  to  be  whis- 
pered that  the  envoys  were  not  confining  their  activities  to 
negotiations  for  the  exchange  of  prisoners,  but  were  trading 
with  the  enemy  and  supplying  them  with  munitions  of  war.1 

Such  accusations  were  by  no  means  a  novelty  in  America. 
At  the  outbreak  of  the  previous  war,  Andros  was  accused  of 
furnishing  the  natives  with  arms  and  ammunition;  and  the 
merchants  of  Albany,  more  enterprising  than  scrupulous,  did 
not  hesitate  to  send  to  the  north  arms  which,  though  designed 
to  be  used  against  Canada,  found  their  way  to  the  Indians  of 
New  England.  In  the  first  years  of  Dudley's  administration 
there  is  no  doubt  that  such  trade  was  going  on,  and  even  that 
some  eager  traders  of  New  England  were  duplicating  the 
methods  of  the  people  of  Albany.  In  fact,  in  1702  and  1703, 
the  Council  handed  over  the  suspected  merchants  to  the 
Superior  Court  for  trial.2  The  crisis,  however,  came  in  1706 
with  the  accusation  of  Vetch ;  and  the  matter  is  interesting 
not  only  for  the  constitutional  points  involved  but  for  its 
effect  upon  the  governor. 

1  The  French  authorities  also  were  suspicious  of  the  activities  of  Vetch,  as 
is  seen  by  the  letters  from  the  French  Government  to  the  governors  at  Quebec 
and  Port  Royal.  See  Collection  de  Manuscrits,  ii.  450-451,  translated  in  Massa- 
chusetts Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  544.  *  Council  Records  (Ms.)i  Hi-  327. 


Ii6  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

The  suspicions  of  the  House  were  aroused  by  the  frequent 
and  prolonged  voyages  of  Vetch ;  and  it  is  possible  that  the 
governor's  method  of  conducting  all  negotiations  without 
reference  to  the  House  may  have  made  them  more  willing  to 
believe  the  idle  gossip  of  the  town.  At  any  rate,  their  sus- 
picions increased  to  such  a  feeling  of  certainty  that  in  June, 
1706,  the  deputies  of  their  own  initiative  passed  a  resolution 
that  Vetch  should  be  taken  into  custody.  The  Council 
agreed,  and  the  judges  of  the  Superior  Court  were  directed  to 
take  " caution"  of  Vetch  for  his  appearance.1  This  hardly 
satisfied  the  deputies,  for  "most  of  them  were  so  furious  as  to 
have  him  confined  in  ye  stone  cage,  for  fear  he  should  get 
away.2  In  addition  to  Vetch,  three  other  sea-captains  and 
merchants  were  soon  arrested.  The  House,  unwilling  to 
trust  the  cases  to  the  Superior  Court,  continued  to  take  the 
initiative.  It  ordered  a  vessel  sent  out  to  arrest  other  suspected 
traders,3  requested  the  governor  to  issue  a  proclamation  against 
those  of  whose  guilt  it  was  certain,4  and  at  the  same  time  and 
in  apparent  harmony  with  the  Council,  proceeded  to  take 
action  against  those  already  apprehended.5 

The  independent  action  of  the  House  continued;  and  the 
"parcell  of  resolute  rusticks"  on  the  bench  "led  the  Dance,"6 
in  which,  however,  the  Council  joined.  A  joint  committee 
was  appointed,7  and  the  traders  were  subjected  to  a  sharp 
examination.8  The  results  proved  that  there  was  a  just  basis 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  202. 

1  John  Winthrop  to  Fitz-John  Winthrop,  June,  1706,  Massachusetts  His- 
torical Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  335. 

3  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  204.         4  Ibid.  207.         5  Ibid.  205. 

6 John  Winthrop  to  Fitz-John  Winthrop,  June,  1706,  as  above;  Sewall's 
Letter-Book,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  series,  i.  333. 

7  June  24,  1706,  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  205. 

8  The  examination  of  Bourland,  Lawson,  and  Coffin  is  in  Massachusetts 
Archives  (Ms.),  Ixxii.  19,  20,  21,  22. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  117 

for  the  suspicions  of  the  House ;  for  it  was  found  that  Vetch 
and  three  others  had  been  using  flags  of  truce  to  cover  their 
operations  and  were  guilty  of  trading  directly  with  the  enemy. 
As  a  result  of  this  examination  the  House  "committed  them 
one  after  another  as  suspected  to  be  guilty  of  Treason,"  and 
proposed  to  try  them  at  the  next  General  Court.1  To  this 
proposition  the  Council  agreed ; 2  but  Sewall  was  somewhat 
surprised  to  hear  the  governor  say  that  the  charter  would 
allow  this  method,  for  at  other  tunes  he  "used  very  zeal- 
ously Declame  against  the  Gen.  Courts  intermeddling  with 
any  Judicial  matter." 3  Orders  were  accordingly  passed  by  the 
House  to  draw  up  bills  of  attainder  and  to  proceed  at  the  next 
session  of  the  Court,  which  was  then  prorogued  till  August  7.* 
"When  the  Seventh  of  August  came,  many  of  the  Deputies 
were  sick  of  what  they  had  done,  and  prayd  a  Conference 
upon  that  head."5  This  conference  was  held  on  August  10. 
The  House  expressed  grave  doubts  as  to  the  legality  of  the 
proceeding ;  but  the  governor  insisted  that  the  deputies  were 
within  their  rights,  and  on  August  13,  by  a  close  vote  of  nine 
to  eight,  the  Council  agreed  and  ordered  the  trial  to  proceed.6 
The  method  of  procedure  was  to  summon  each  prisoner  to  the 
bar  of  the  House,  to  furnish  him  with  a  copy  of  the  accusa- 
tion, and  to  allow  him  to  be  heard  by  counsel.7  The  House 
at  once  voted  all  the  prisoners  guilty  of  the  charges  preferred 
against  them,  and  ordered  a  joint  committee  of  the  House  and 


1  Sewall's  Letter-Book,  as  above ;  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  221 . 
1  Records  of  the  General  Court,  viii.  221. 

3  Sewall's  Letter-Book,  as  above,  333,  339. 

4  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  224. 
6  Sewall's  Letter-Book,  as  above,  334. 

6  Sewall's  Diary,  August  10,  1 706,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Col- 
lections, sth  Series,  vi.  164. 

''Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  235. 


u8  TEE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

the  Council  to  prepare  a  bill  of  punishment  for  each  one  of 
them.1  These  bills  were  enacted  on  September  8,  1706 ; 2  and 
the  Court,  after  vainly  trying  to  vote  extra  compensation 
to  the  governor  and  itself  for  the  trouble  taken  in  the  trial, 
was  then  adjourned.3 

There  is  no  doubt  that  Sewall  and  the  minority  of  the 
Council  were  correct  in  their  contention  that  it  was  not  within 
the  power  of  the  General  Court  to  try  these  cases.  It  was  a 
stretch  of  legal  terms  to  call  that  misdemeanor  which  the  law 
called  treason,  and  it  was  entirely  contrary  to  the  charter  to 
try  cases  of  treason  before  a  legislative  assembly.  That  this 
was  an  unwarranted  extension  of  the  powers  of  the  Massachu- 
setts Court  is  seen  by  the  action  of  the  Privy  Council.  When 
the  cases  came  before  it  the  acts  were  ordered  to  be  repealed, 
the  fines  were  restored  and  the  prisoners  released  on  bail,  and 
a  new  trial  was  ordered  to  be  held  before  the  regularly  author- 
ized court  within  six  months.4  Thus  by  a  burst  of  bitter  feel- 
ing, the  General  Court  had  rendered  nugatory  its  whole  case. 
When  the  time  for  the  new  trial  came,  Vetch  was  commander 
of  the  expedition  against  Canada  and  too  important  a  man  to 
be  touched  by  the  criminal  court.  With  the  failure  of  his  case 
the  others  were  allowed  to  drop. 

The  fact  that  Vetch  was  a  friend  of  Dudley  and  that  the 
governor  was  accused  of  complicity  in  the  affair,  led  his  enemies 
to  conclude  that  he  had  procured  the  trial  before  the  General 
Court  knowing  that  the  sentence  would  be  annulled.  Sewall, 
who  at  the  time  of  the  trial  did  not  believe  that  the  governor 
was  concerned,  says  that  the  Council  consented  to  a  trial  for 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  235. 

J  Ibid.  240;  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vi.  62-66,  chs.  20-23. 

3  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  240. 

4  Register  of  the  Privy  Council  (Ms.),  Anne,  iii.  306 ;  Report  of  the  attorney- 
general,  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  13,  R.  19. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  119 

misdemeanor  before  the  Court,  out  of  pity  for  the  prisoners.1 
Cotton  Mather,  however,  writing  a  few  months  later,  was  not 
so  charitable.  He  accused  the  governor  of  favoring  a  trial 
of  this  nature  (which  he  had  hitherto  opposed)  solely  because 
he  hoped  that  some  personal  advantage  might  accrue  to  him- 
self. Mather  asserted  that  the  whole  affair  was  managed  by 
the  governor.2  If  this  be  true,  Dudley  was  certainly  taking 
a  great  risk,  for  in  the  House  were  his  most  bitter  enemies, 
ever  ready  to  take  advantage  of  every  slip.  Moreover,  he 
would  have  had  to  count  on  the  discretion  and  loyalty  of  the 
prisoners.  Even  on  the  supposition  that  he  had  promised 
them  his  protection  and  assured  them  that  the  acts  of  punish- 
ment would  be  disallowed,  they  were  forced  to  remain  in 
prison  longer  than  their  terms  of  sentence  required,  and  by 
the  decision  given  in  England,  were  merely  released  on  bail  to 
be  tried  again.  This  would  have  been  a  severe  test  for  the 
loyalty  of  an  innocent  man,  to  say  nothing  of  criminals,  who 
by  the  exposure  of  an  accomplice  might  have  lightened  their 
own  punishment.3 

The  failure  of  the  Church  expedition  and  of  the  trial  of 
Vetch  and  his  accomplices  increased  Dudley's  difficulties. 
Indian  raids  continued,  though  Dudley  reported  that  he  was 
"in  a  much  more  Secure  posture  than  in  any  former  Warr 
and  the  people  very  easy  and  Satisfied."4  Still  he  was  not 
content,  but  made  far-reaching  plans  which  he  urged  the 
English  government  to  adopt.  On  October  8,  1706,  he  asked 
for  English  aid  to  subdue  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia,  "without 

1  Sewall's  Letter-Book,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th 
Series,  i.  334. 

J  Mather  to  Dudley,  January  20,  1707-1708,  ibid,  ist  Series,  iii.  126  et  seq.; 
Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  ii.  148. 

3  For  Dudley's  report  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  see  below,  pp.  132-133. 

4  Board  of  Trade,  Colonial  Entry  Book,  New  England  (Ms.),  41,  F.  228. 


120  THE  PUBLIC   LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

which  it  were  better  if  her  Majty  see  meet  that  I  did  accept 
the  Truce  they  have  offered  mee  .  .  .  not  [that]  they  can  do 
me  any  great  mischief,  but  [put]  mee  to  an  Infinite  expense  to 
guard  The  Frontiers  .  .  .  and  they  know  that  tho  I  [have] 
men  enough  I  cannot  ruin  Quebec  without  four  or  five  of  her 
Majestys  ships  &  Some  Mortars." 1  This  plan  of  striking 
directly  at  the  seat  of  the  danger  was  a  favorite  one  of  Dudley's 
which  offered  the  true  solution  of  the  problem,  and  when 
fairly  adopted  by  England  and  executed  by  skilful  commanders 
brought  about  the  final  conquest  of  Canada. 

Without  waiting  for  the  aid  which  he  had  asked  from  Eng- 
land, Dudley  decided,  perhaps  because  he  felt  that  he  must 
do  something  to  increase  his  prestige,  to  make  an  attempt  on 
his  own  account,  and  to  utilize  the  war  spirit  of  the  colonists. 
Early  in  1706-1707  he  was  in  secret  communication  with 
Fitz-John  Winthrop  of  Connecticut,  asking  him  to  influence 
that  colony  to  join  with  Massachusetts  in  making  a  combined 
expedition.2  Winthrop's  reply  was  characteristic  of  the 
attitude  of  Connecticut,  and  showed  how  bitterly  the  colo- 
nists resented  the  restoration  of  Port  Royal  after  the  Peace  of 
Ryswick.  "The  temper  of  our  people,"  he  wrote  "(tho  very 
stout)  is  generally  very  thoughtfull  and  cautious;  and  'tis 
possible  some  may  insinuate  that  tho'  wee  should  succede  in 
the  designe,  yet  if  vpon  the  conclusion  of  a  peace  (wch  one 
would  think  not  far  off)  it  should  be  restored  to  them,  the 
honr  of  our  succes  will  soone  be  forgotten,  and  wee  should 
much  resent  that  we  haue  lavisht  our  blood  and  treasure."3 
Again,  on  April  4,  Winthrop  officially  communicated  the 
decision  of  the  Connecticut  Assembly,  that  under  the  circum- 
stances, they  could  not  assist  in  the  design.4 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  13,  Q.  60. 

2  Dudley  to   Winthrop,  February   10,  1706-1707,  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  367.  3  Ibid.  370-371.  4  Ibid.  376. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  121 

The  refusal  of  Connecticut  did  not  discourage  Dudley  or  the 
General  Court  of  Massachusetts,  for  great  care  and  expense 
were  taken  to  fit  out  a  suitable  expedition.  This  time,  profit- 
ing by  his  previous  experience,  Dudley  submitted  to  the 
Court  the  instructions  given  to  the  commanders.1  This 
expedition,  the  largest  that  Dudley  had  as  yet  sent  out,  con- 
sisted of  over  a  thousand  soldiers,  chiefly  from  Massachusetts, 
and  was  commanded  by  Colonel  John  March.  With  the 
colonial  force  went  the  royal  frigate  Deptford  and  the  province 
galley  to  act  as  convoys ;  and  Colonel  Redknap,  an  English 
engineer,  was  sent  out  to  supervise  the  plans  of  attack.  At 
best  it  was  but  a  band  of  ill-disciplined  and  untrained  militia 
led  by  officers  who,  although  they  might  be  good  leaders  on 
Indian  raids,  had  no  experience  in  handling  such  a  large  force 
or  in  attacking  fortified  places.  That  Dudley  himself  had 
misgivings  may  be  gathered  from  his  address  to  the  Assembly 
a  few  weeks  after  the  expedition  sailed.  "I  am  sensible,"  he 
said,  "her  Majesties  Subjects  of  these  Provinces  have  not  seen 
such  regular  Service  as  the  Wars  of  Europe  or  the  present 
expedition  may  demand  but  I  am  well  assured  of  their  Cour- 
age."2 

His  fears  were  fully  justified,  and  even  his  reliance  on  the 
courage  of  the  leaders  was  misplaced.  The  troops  reached 
Port  Royal  early  in  June,  and  a  portion  of  them  were  landed 
in  what  proved  to  be  an  exceedingly  unfortunate  position.3 
"Ye  Dev1  I  doubt  not  was  y8  adviser  of  it,"  writes  one  of  the 

1  The  Records  of  the  General  Court,  March  5-23,  are  full  of  the  discussions 
and  plans  of  the  expedition.     The  instructions  are  hi  Massachusetts  Archives 
(Ms.),  Ixxi.  308-336. 

2  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  296. 

3  The  most  recent  full  discussion  of  this  expedition  is  found  in  Massachusetts 
Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  668-696,  715-718,  722-751,  where  are  reprinted  at  length 
selections  from  the  records  of  the  Court  and  from  the  Massachusetts  Archives. 


122  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

party.  The  landing  party  fell  into  an  ambush,  and  the 
artillery  was  not  disembarked  when  it  should  have  been,  for 
"  the  De1  was  still  doing  his  work."  Colonel  Redknap  and 
the  colonial  commanders  disagreed  in  the  placing  of  the 
batteries,  and  Redknap  "showed  Spiteful  Temper."  Frequent 
councils  were  held,  and  at  last  a  plan  of  action  was  agreed 
upon;  "but  at  night  a  Maggot  bitt  Some  people  &  a  Council 
was  held  and  all  revoked  Wh  they  had  done."  In  the  skir- 
mishes the  men  fought  well ;  but  they  were  poorly  led,  for 
the  general  was  "both  Boy  &  Fool  Ridden."  The  expedition 
retired  to  Casco  Bay  and  a  delegation  was  sent  to  Boston  to 
explain  the  failure,  a  delegation  whose  "Designes  .  .  .  [were] 
Precarious,  Ambiguous,  Mental  Selfish  &  I  really  doubt 
Devilish." 

This  account,  taken  from  "a  letter  from  a  Gentleman  in  the 
Army  to  his  friend  in  Boston,"1  quite  agrees  with  the  reports 
sent  by  William  Dudley  to  his  father.2  Raw  militia  and  in- 
experienced commanders  were  poor  material  with  which  to 
besiege  such  a  post  as  Port  Royal.  Colonel  March  was 
at  best  incapable,  but  his  vacillation  and  practical  cowardice 
prevented  any  cooperation  with  the  other  commanders. 
When  the  delegation  reached  Boston  it  was  greeted  with  hoots 
and  jeers,  and  Redknap,  to  free  himself  from  blame,  declared 
privately  to  Winthrop  that  he  had  done  as  much  as  his  orders 
allowed.3  Dudley  acted  with  promptness :  he  heard  the 
report,  called  a  general  council  of  the  officers,  and  sent  a  com- 
mission of  popular  leaders  to  retrieve  the  error.  Under  the 
lead  of  this  commission  another  attempt  was  made  on  Port 

1  Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.),  Ixxi.  355. 
*Ibid.  li.  164,  Ixxi.  351-355. 

3  John  Winthrop  to  Fitz-John  Winthrop,  July,  1707,  Massachusetts  His- 
torical Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  387. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  123 

Royal,  but  after  considerable  skirmishing  and  some  destruc- 
tion of  property  the  expedition  returned  to  Boston.1 

This  second  failure  was  a  blow  to  Dudley's  prestige,  but  he 
put  the  best  face  possible  upon  it.  He  attempted  to  reach  the 
guilty  officers  by  courts  martial,  and  told  the  General  Court 
that,  although  he  had  not  accomplished  all  he  had  hoped  for, 
yet  he  had  destroyed  the  estates  of  the  French  round  Port 
Royal.  He  took  the  same  line  to  the  Board  of  Trade.  He 
was  loyally  silent  concerning  the  inefficiency  of  the  com- 
manders, attributing  the  failure  to  the  lack  of  heavy  guns. 
He  enlarged  upon  the  great  destruction  of  French  property, 
the  small  loss  to  his  own  force,  and  the  numbers  of  prisoners 
he  had  taken,  and  concluded,  "and  so  I  must  be  content  for 
this  winter."2 

Though  discouraged  by  this  second  miscarriage  of  his  plans, 
Dudley  did  not  lose  heart.  In  fact,  the  disaster  taught  him 
the  much-needed  lesson  of  the  necessity  of  having  able  com- 
manders and  aid  from  England.  Two  years  later,  therefore, 
when  the  colonists  sought  to  free  themselves  from  the  danger 
of  French  invasion,  they  asked  the  aid  and  cooperation  of 
England.  In  October,  1708,  the  General  Court  prepared  an 
address  to  the  queen  asking  for  aid  to  drive  the  French  from 
Canada.3  The  bearer  of  the  address,  curiously  enough,  was 
Samuel  Vetch,  who  had  been  released  from  his  imprisonment 
by  order  of  the  Privy  Council.  Vetch  had  married  into  the 
Livingstone  family  and  was,  with  his  father-in-law,  interested 
in  the  Canadian  trade ;  he  was  also,  as  has  been  seen,  employed 
by  Dudley  in  his  negotiations  with  Vaudreuil.4  Thus  by 

1  In  the  Board  of  Trade's  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  13,  R.  57,  there  is  an 
account  of  "The  Shamefulness  of  the  Port  Royal  Expedition." 

2  Ibid.  R.  35.  3  Ibid.  14,  S.  50. 

4  See  memoir  and  papers  relating  to  Vetch,  in  Nova  Scotia  Historical  So- 
ciety, Collections,  iv.  11-112. 


124  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

knowledge,  experience,  and  influence  he  was  well  qualified  to 
urge  the  plans  of  the  colonists.  The  reception  of  his  proposals 
more  than  justified  the  confidence  which  the  colonists  had  put 
in  his  abilities;  for,  with  the  encouragement  given  him  in 
England,  the  plan  to  conquer  Canada  widened  until  it  in- 
volved the  expulsion  both  of  the  French  in  the  north  and  of 
the  Spaniards  in  the  south.1  To  this  the  English  government 
agreed,  and  the  queen  directed  that  circular  letters  should  be 
sent  to  the  governors  of  all  the  colonies  north  of  Pennsyl- 
vania commanding  them  to  give  assistance  as  Vetch  should 
require  it.2 

Early  in  April  the  Dragon  arrived  in  Boston  with  the  com- 
manders Vetch  and  Nicholson  on  board.  A  council  meeting 
was  held  on  April  13,  at  which  the  English  officers  were  pres- 
ent; and  during  the  succeeding  weeks  the  Council  issued 
many  orders  carrying  out  the  suggestions  of  Vetch.3  Dudley, 
Vetch,  and  Nicholson  were  apparently  acting  in  perfect  accord, 
and  Dudley  took  every  opportunity  to  show  them  honor, 
much  to  the  disgust  of  the  colonists ; 4  but  though  he  was  evi- 
dently partial  to  the  British  commanders,  he  saw  to  it  that 
the  pay  of  the  colonial  officers  should  be  raised  so  that  they 
might  "look  like  British  Officers  With  whom  they  must  now 
be  joined,  That  they  be  not  disparaged  in  the  Service."5 
The  General  Court  met  on  May  25,  and  on  the  following  day 
Dudley  began  to  urge  the  passage  of  the  bills  necessary  to 
raise  and  equip  the  required  force.  Under  his  lead  the  Court 
authorized  the  raising  and  equipping  of  a  force  of  nine  hundred 
men,  the  fitting  out  of  transports  and  hospitals,  and  the  seizing 

1  Parkman,  A  Half-Century  of  Conflict,  i.  130. 
1  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  v.  70. 
J  Council  Records  (Ms.),  v.  54  et  seq. 

4  Sewall's  Diary,  July  21,  1709,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collec- 
tions, sth  Series,  vi.  259.  *  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  456. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  125 

of  provisions  to  be  paid  for  at  a  fixed  price.1  Although  the 
Court  thus  loyally  seconded  Dudley,  these  measures  were  not 
popular  with  the  Boston  merchants,  and  the  Council  found 
considerable  difficulty  in  enforcing  them.2 

The  attack  upon  the  seaboard  colonies  was  but  a  part  of 
Vetch's  plan.  While  Port  Royal  was  to  be  threatened  by 
Massachusetts,  a  combined  attack  from  New  York  was  to  be 
made  upon  Canada  in  concert  with  the  Iroquois.  This  part 
of  the  plan  was  intrusted  to  Nicholson ;  but,  though  he  reached 
Lake  Champlain,  he  did  not  dare  to  move  farther  until  he 
heard  that  the  combined  British  and  colonial  forces  had  left 
Boston.  Throughout  the  summer  of  1709  the  force  under 
Nicholson  lay  at  Wood  Creek  and  was  decimated  by  disease ; 
while  during  the  same  time  the  Massachusetts  forces  were 
quartered  in  Boston  and  the  provisions  were  on  shipboard. 
At  length,  at  the  October  session  of  the  Court,  Dudley  was 
obliged  to  announce  that  word  had  come  from  England  that 
the  fleet  had  been  diverted.  At  a  council  of  officers  Dudley 
urged  that  an  attempt  be  made  upon  Port  Royal  with  the 
forces  already  under  arms ;  but  the  English  officers  refused  to 
sanction  this  step,  and  some  of  the  colonial  vessels  sailed  away.3 
Dudley  continued  to  urge  his  plan  upon  the  General  Court ;  but 
the  Representatives  refused  to  comply,  and  after  some  futile 
debate  he  was  forced  to  sign  the  warrant  disbanding  the  troops.4 

Again  Dudley  had  been  unfortunate,  but  his  plans  had 
failed  this  time  through  no  fault  of  his  own.  The  expense  to 
the  colony  had  been  heavy,  —  sixty  thousand  pounds,  he 
reported  to  the  Board  of  Trade ; 5  but  this  had  been  granted 

llbid.  431,446,  458. 

2  Council  Records  (Ms.),  v.  79-80. 

3  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  477. 

4  Ibid.  477-482. 

*  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  14,  S.  60. 


126  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

cheerfully  in  the  hope  that  "that  nest  of  Spoilers  so  near  us" 
might  be  destroyed.1  The  colony  was  again  disappointed, 
but  in  the  face  of  such  disappointment  it  speaks  much  both 
for  Dudley's  tact  and  for  the  sense  of  justice  of  the  colonists 
that  their  displeasure  was  not  vented  upon  him.  Although 
the  merchants  might  complain  at  the  prices  established  by 
the  Court  and  Sewall  grow  petulant  at  the  entertainment  of 
the  British  officers,  there  was  surprisingly  little  criticism  of 
the  governor.  It  seems  to  have  been  tacitly  admitted  that 
he  performed  his  difficult  part  with  remarkable  discretion. 

In  reporting  the  expense  of  this  attempt  Dudley  declared 
that  it  had  been  borne  cheerfully  in  the  hope  that  another 
expedition  might  be  sent  in  1710  which  would  bring  about  the 
reduction  of  Canada ; 2  and  the  General  Court  had  already 
sent  an  address  to  the  queen  requesting  aid  for  the  enterprise. 
This  time,  warned  by  experience,  the  Court  made  few  prepa- 
rations until  the  fleet  was  actually  in  the  harbor.  Then,  in 
the  last  weeks  of  July,  arrangements  were  hurried.  The 
queen  was  thanked  for  her  generosity  and  assured  that  she 
would  find  the  colony  both  ready  and  willing  to  cooperate 
with  the  royal  force.  The  House  then  postponed  consideration 
of  all  measures  that  had  been  assigned  to  this  session  in  order 
that  it  might  be  able  to  give  its  undivided  attention  to  military 
affairs.  A  force  of  nine  hundred  men  was  voted,  and,  as 
extra  inducements  to  enlist,  a  month's  pay  was  given  in 
advance,  freedom  from  impressment  for  three  years  was  guar- 
anteed to  the  volunteers,  and  the  troops  received  as  a  personal 
gift  the  arms  furnished  by  the  colony  for  the  expedition. 
Provisions  were  again  to  be  seized  and  to  be  paid  for  at  fixed 
prices,  soldiers  were  quartered  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Boston, 
and  bills  of  credit  were  issued  to  the  amount  of  fifteen  thou- 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  S.  41.      2  Ibid.  S.  60,  S.  88. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  127 

sand  pounds.1  On  September  i  the  expedition  sailed  from 
Boston,  and  on  the  25th  the  troops  were  disembarked  before 
Port  Royal.  The  men  were  well  placed,  the  fire  from  the 
heavy  guns  soon  forced  the  French  commander  to  surrender, 
and  Port  Royal  was  hi  the  hands  of  the  English  for  the  third 
time.2 

Massachusetts  and  Dudley  were  greatly  relieved  and  rejoiced ; 
not  only  was  the  "nest  of  Spoilers"  destroyed  and  the  danger 
of  French  invasion  removed,  but  the  fisheries  of  the  colony  were 
much  enlarged.  The  General  Court  hastened  to  thank  the 
queen  for  the  capture  of  Port  Royal  and  to  suggest  that  the 
fruits  of  the  victory  be  secured  by  the  establishment  of  an 
English  colony  there ;  and,  having  gained  this  decisive  victory, 
both  the  Court  and  Dudley  urged  that  another  expedition  be 
sent  against  Quebec.3  The  representations  of  the  Massachu- 
setts assembly  fell  in  with  the  desires  of  the  English  ministry. 
It  was  decided  that  a  large  expedition  should  be  sent  to  conquer 
Canada  and  put  an  end  once  for  all  to  the  danger  of  French 
invasion  from  that  quarter.  Practically  the  same  plans  were 
adopted  that  had  been  tried  in  the  expedition  of  1709.  An 
overland  expedition  was  to  go  from  New  York  up  the  valley 
of  the  Hudson  River,  while  a  great  fleet  from  England  was  to 
ascend  the  St.  Lawrence  and  attack  Quebec.  The  expedition 
was  well  devised  and  well  equipped,  but  most  unfortunately 
commanded;  "Jack"  Hill,  the  brother  of  Mrs.  Masham,  the 
favorite  of  the  queen,  and  Sir  Hovenden  Walker,  two  men  of 
notorious  incompetency,  were  picked  for  the  leaders. 

So  well  were  the  plans  of  the  admiralty  concealed  that  not 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  ix.  57-66  et  seq.,  July  20  to  August  23. 

2  Nicholson's  Journal  is  in  the  Board  of  Trade's  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.), 
14;  T.  13;  and  also  in  Nova  Scotia  Historical  Society,  Collections,  i.  59-104. 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  ix.  76. 


128  THE  PUBLIC   LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

till  Nicholson  landed  at  Boston  did  the  colonists  believe  that 
the  fleet  would  be  sent.  Though  the  House  at  once  voted  to 
raise  a  force  of  nine  hundred  men  and  a  hundred  Indians,  it 
urged  Dudley  to  represent  the  poverty  of  the  colony  at  a 
military  conference  which  was  to  be  held  at  New  London.1 
Before  Dudley  could  return,  the  fleet  arrived  at  Boston. 
Once  again  the  Court  responded  to  his  urging.  Bills  of  credit 
for  forty  thousand  pounds  were  issued,  the  merchants  subscribed 
to  a  popular  loan,  and  the  commissary  officers  were  author- 
ized to  break  in  and  seize  the  necessary  provisions  if  these 
could  not  be  purchased  at  the  prices  fixed  by  the  Court.2 
In  carrying  out  these  directions,  Dudley  encountered  consider- 
able opposition,  which  was  not  diminished  by  the  overbearing 
manner  of  the  British  officers;  so  that  all  concerned  were 
glad  to  see  the  fleet  leave  Boston,  June  30,  1711. 

Though  Vetch,  who  was  brought  on  from  Port  Royal  to 
command  the  colonial  detachment,  had  been  on  the  river 
many  times,  his  advice  was  not  utilized,  and  eight  or  nine  of 
the  transports  were  wrecked ;  whereupon  Hill  and  Walker, 
although  they  still  had  a  large  force  at  their  command,  decided 
to  retreat.3  Thus  the  efforts  of  the  colonists  were  again 
wasted,  and  an  increased  debt  was  the  sole  result  of  the  expe- 
dition. 

If  Dudley's  career  as  a  captain-general  be  judged  by  the 
expeditions  with  which  he  was  connected,  it  was  a  lamentable 
failure.  Yet  he  never  pretended  to  any  military  ability,  nor 
was  such  expected  of  him.  His  talents  lay  rather  in  an  ad- 
ministrative line ;  and  from  this  point  of  view  his  career  was 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  ix.  119. 
1  Ibid.  127-131. 

J  Vetch's  Journal  is  in  British  State  Papers,  America  and  West  Indies  (Ms.), 
561,  pp.  271  ei  seq.;  also  in  Nova  Scotia  Historical  Society,  Collections,  iv.  105- 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN   AFFAIRS  129 

by  no  means  an  unsuccessful  one.  While  he  was  governor, 
numerous  and  large  expeditions  were  raised  and  equipped 
in  a  colony  already  burdened  with  debt  and  deserted  by  her 
natural  allies;  but  the  credit  for  this  is  due  as  much  to  the 
people  of  Massachusetts  as  to  Dudley,  and  perhaps  a  more 
popular  man  could  have  done  even  better.  Yet  his  efforts 
were  appreciated  both  in  Massachusetts  and  in  England ;  and 
his  schemes  for  conquest,  though  sometimes  foiled  by  the 
choice  of  improper  leaders,  were  those  which  the  English 
government  approved  and  ultimately  adopted  in  the  final 
conquest  of  Canada. 

One  of  the  qualities  that  aided  Dudley  in  gaining  his  ap- 
pointment was  his  ability  to  deal  with  the  Indians.  No  man, 
it  was  said,  was  fit  to  manage  Indians  unless  he  had  eaten  a 
bushel  of  salt;  and  "Coll.  Dudley  had  eat  more  as  two," 
wrote  one  of  his  enthusiastic  admirers.1  His  experience  in 
Indian  affairs  was  long  and  varied.  During  King  Philip's 
War  he  was  one  of  the  commissioners  of  the  Massachusetts 
Court;  as  an  Assistant  he  and  Stoughton  were  constantly 
employed  on  Indian  affairs;  while  in  New  York  he  was  one 
of  the  Indian  commissioners ;  and  he  still  retained  his  power, 
as  will  be  seen  in  his  ability  to  influence  the  Mohegan  Indians 
in  order  to  further  his  own  ends.  As  governor  of  Massachu- 
setts, he  had  ample  opportunity  to  display  his  talents.  In 
one  of  his  first  speeches  to  the  Assembly  he  informed  the 
deputies  that  he  had  heard  from  secret  intelligence  that  the 
French  were  tampering  with  the  neutrality  of  the  Indians ; 2 
and  one  of  his  first  acts  was  to  make  a  journey  to  Maine  to 
try  to  dissuade  the  Indians  from  joining  with  the  French. 

1  Godfrey  Dellius  to  Paul  Dudley,  September  16,  1701,  Massachusetts  His- 
torical Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  520. 

2  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  vii.  333. 


130  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

Although  he  was  not  successful  in  this  particular  instance, 
there  is  ample  evidence  that  he  had  great  power  over  them. 
Throughout  his  whole  administration  he  kept  in  close  touch 
with  the  Schuylers  at  Albany,  who  were  sometimes  able  to  warn 
him  of  an  impending  raid.1  Moreover,  it  is  possible  that  he 
may  have  taken  advantage  of  the  good-will  of  the  Nipmucks ; 
for  there  are  instances  in  the  Council  records  of  Indians  from 
that  region  bringing  information  to  the  governor,  and  it  is 
certain  that  he  took  great  interest  in  this  feature  of  his  admin- 
istration, personally  directing  the  Indian  scouts  and  spies.2 
Although  profiting  by  his  influence  with  the  Indians,  his 
enemies  did  not  hesitate  to  charge  him  with  improper  corre- 
spondence not  merely  with  the  Indians,  but  with  the  French  as 
well ;  and  he  was  accused  of  permitting,  if  not  inciting,  some 
of  the  attacks  upon  the  colony.3 

In  his  management  of  the  Indians,  Dudley  developed  a 
sound  policy.  It  was  his  purpose  to  establish  trading  posts  in 
the  Indian  country,  to  get  first  their  trade  and  friendship  and 
then  their  aid  against  the  French.  This  idea  he  broached  at 
the  first  meeting  of  the  General  Court  hi  1702 ; 4  but  the 
Assembly  disapproved  and  the  matter  was  dropped  until  the 
close  of  the  war.  At  the  first  Court  after  the  peace,  Dudley 
revived  his  scheme.6  There  were  complaints  that  fishermen 
sold  brandy  to  the  Indians  and  caused  many  disturbances,6 
and  that  the  Indians  were  becoming  disgusted  with  their  deal- 

1  Council  Records  (Ms.),  iv.  371. 

2  Ibid.  iii.  420,  422. 

3  See  A  Memorial  of  the  Present  Deplorable  State  of  New  England,  12-13; 
Dudley  "could  prevent  the  Indians  and  French  from  coming  upon  us";  he 
"had  Correspondence  with  a  Fryer  or  Jesuit  .  .  .  and  hath  great  influence" 
over  the  Indians. 

4  Council  Records  (Ms.),  iii.  362. 

6  May  27,  1713,  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  ix.  2710. 
8  Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.),  li.  265. 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  131 

ings  with  the  colonial  traders  and  might  resume  their  trade 
and  intercourse  with  the  French.  Dudley  at  first  proposed 
that  the  Court  admit  the  Indians  to  trade  under  strict  regula- 
tions. To  the  first  part  of  this  proposition  the  Court  agreed, 
and  voted  to  admit  the  Indians  to  trade.1  But  a  free  and  un- 
restricted trade  was  not  what  the  governor  wanted ;  he  desired 
that  a  trading  post  should  be  established  having  a  monopoly 
of  all  the  Indian  trade  and  that  it  be  kept  under  strict  govern- 
mental control.  To  this  the  Court  would  not  agree,  but  as  a 
temporary  compromise,  voted  that  the  governor  might  license 
certain  persons  not  connected  with  the  government  to  trade 
with  the  Indians.2  In  the  following  year,  Dudley  renewed 
his  application  for  a  trading  house,  to  be  managed  by  an  officer 
who  should  have  no  interest  in  the  profits  made  at  the  post; 
by  this  means  he  hoped  to  establish  peaceful  relations  with  the 
Indians  and  to  gain  their  trade,  which  was  in  danger  of  going 
over  to  the  French.3  Though  the  Council  at  first  supported 
the  governor,  the  House  was  firm,  and  the  matter  ended  in  a 
defeat  for  Dudley;  for  on  June  18  the  House  voted  to  admit 
the  Indians  to  trade  with  any  one  or  in  any  part  of  the  prov- 
ince.4 

It  is  probable  that  the  deputies  believed  that  the  governor 
had  eaten  his  "bushel  of  salt,"  and  saw  in  this  measure  but 
another  one  of  his  attempts  to  benefit  himself.  Had  his  plan 
been  adopted,  it  is  certain  that  the  door  would  have  been  open 
for  some  corruption,  that  places  would  have  been  made  for  the 
governor's  supporters,  and  that  his  interest  would  have  been 
strengthened.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  certain  that 
Dudley's  plan  was  a  wise  one,  for  it  was  used  with  remarkable 
success  both  by  the  French  in  Canada  and  by  the  English  in  New 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  ix.  315.          3  Ibid.  375,  May  26,  1714. 

2  Ibid.  340.  4  Ibid.  376. 


132  TEE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

York.  The  General  Court  was  jealous  of  the  executive  power, 
and  the  trading  class  was  so  anxious  for  gains  that  Dudley's 
well-tried  plan  was  never  put  into  effect  in  Massachusetts ; 
but  the  Indians  were  left  to  the  mercy  of  the  frontier  traders, 
who  were  practically  uncontrolled  by  the  government. 

NOTE 

DUDLEY'S  REPORT  TO  THE  BOARD  OF  TRADE,  OCTOBER  8,  1706 

...  I  had  a  Number  of  French  Prisoners  belonging  to  Port 
Royale,  And  they  near  an  Equale  Number  of  our  men,  And  Some 
that  belonged  to  Virginea  taken  at  Sea,  which  I  was  willing  to 
exchange,  and  accordingly  sent  a  Sloop  to  Port  Royale  on  that 
Score,  The  Master  I  employed  was  one  Rouse  who  foolishly  & 
wickedly  agreed  with  a  Fishing  Vessell  or  Two  to  follow  him,  And 
hoping  for  some  gain  carried  Trade  with  him,  cloathes  &  Grain, 
And  at  the  same  time  some  other  vessell  managed  by  Captain 
Vetch  That  came  from  Darien  when  that  place  broke  up,  was 
concerned  also ;  And  Sayled  to  the  Poynt  of  Cancer  on  the  bank 
of  Newfoundland;  I  had  soon  advice  thereof  and  they  were  all 
apprehended  &  Comitted  to  Prison,  and  the  people  thereupon  in  a 
very  great  displeasure,  That  any  Body  should  be  so  wicked  as  to 
Labour  to  Supply  The  Indian  Rebells  that  were  fled  from  us,  And 
whose  Planting  there  three  Years  I  had  prevented  by  very  hard 
Marches  of  the  Queens  Subjects. 

The  Generall  Assembly  being  Sitting  at  the  Time  I  allowed 
them  to  take  cognisance  thereof  as  the  Charter  doth  admit,  And 
upon  a  long  hearing  and  process  Six  of  the  Said  Persons  are  fined. 
.  .  .  The  Acts  of  the  Assembly  are  now  laid  before  your  Lord- 
ships, And  I  have  underwritten  and  agreed  The  Acts  Severally 
with  these  words  Saving  to  her  Majesty  her  Royall  prerogative 
reserving  to  the  Fines  as  I  am  Comanded. 

I  am  humbly  of  opinion  That  the  fines  are  beyond  the  Power  of 
Some  of  them  (especially  Rouse)  to  pay,  And  would  have  been 
glad  had  all  been  moderated  about  one  halfe,  To  Which  if  Her 
Majesty  will  of  her  royal  Grace  please  to  remite,  or  however  it 


MILITARY  AND  INDIAN  AFFAIRS  133 

shall  please  her  Majesty  to  dispose,  I  most  humbly  submit  it  to 
her  royale  Pleasure. 

I  am  sensible  that  the  Persons  in  their  Applications  to  your 
Lordships  and  elsewhere  will  reflect  upon  Some  Methods  in  the 
Proceedings,  Especially  of  the  house  of  Representatives,  but  when 
it  shall  be  remembered,  That  they  are  farr  distant  from  home,  of 
less  education  and  knowledge  in  the  Law,  and  in  a  very  great 
displeasure  against  Traders  with  the  Enimy,  aggravated  by  a 
hard  pressure  of  the  Enimy  at  the  very  instant  when  this  was 
discovered,  it  will  go  a  great  way  in  their  Excuse. 

It  was  a  very  difficult  thing  for  mee  to  keep  the  People  within 
bounds  in  their  Displeasure,  and  I  was  something  fearfule  of  any 
outrage  upon  the  Delinquents,  but  it  is  well  over,  And  the  pro- 
ceeding of  the  Generall  Assembly,  The  Members  will  to  be  sure 
[to]  use  their  endavours  to  make  it  look  well  &  satisfactory  to  the 
People  everywhere,  And  no  other  Court  could  have  done  the 
Same. 

I  pray  leave  to  Assure  your  Lordships  That  I  was  never  more 
sorry  for  anything  in  my  Life,  Than  that  so  ill  and  inconvenient 
thing  should  happen  to  outrage  the  People  while  they  are  under 
so  heavy  Taxes  &  hard  Service  to  starve  And  Destroy  the  Enimy. 

That  I  have  used  all  possible  means  in  my  Power  in  the  Pro- 
ceedings to  have  them  modedate  as  well  as  reasonably  Satisfactory 
in  so  Publick  a  Case. 

That  I  have  no  animosity  to  any  The  Persons  delinquents  who 
had  suffered  to  the  Last  Degree  If  I  had  not  with  all  the  Skill  I 
have,  laboured  to  quiet  The  People. 

That  I  shall  be  very  glad  of  her  Majestys  favour  to  any  or  all 
of  them  as  well  as  to  all  her  good  Subjects  in  the  Government,  who 
are  at  this  Time  patient  of  the  utmost  Charges  and  heavy  Service 
for  Her  Majestys  honour  as  well  as  their  own  Support.1 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  13,  Q-  oo. 


CHAPTER  VII 

DUDLEY'S    RELATIONS    WITH    THE    COLONIES    OF    NEW 
HAMPSHIRE,   RHODE  ISLAND,  AND   CONNECTICUT 

THE  Stuart  plan  for  the  consolidation  of  the  American 
colonies  was  checked  by  the  revolution  of  1689.  The  charters 
granted  by  Charles  II  to  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  were 
quietly  resumed,  and  the  governments  established  under  them 
were  tacitly  recognized  by  William  III.  Of  the  Dominion  of 
New  England,  as  it  existed  in  the  time  of  Andros,  New 
Hampshire  and  New  York  remained  royal  provinces,  directly 
dependent  upon  the  crown ;  while  Massachusetts  received 
a  charter  vesting  the  appointment  of  the  governor  in  the  king. 
During  the  administration  of  Lord  Bellomont,  the  experiment 
of  joining  New  York  to  New  England  was  again  tried;  but 
from  his  death  until  1702  this  policy  was  held  in  abeyance, 
and  was  definitely  abandoned  upon  the  appointment  of 
Dudley  as  governor  of  Massachusetts  and  of  Lord  Cornbury 
as  governor  of  New  York.  From  1702,  throughout  the  colonial 
period,  New  York  and  Massachusetts,  though  both  exposed 
to  the  same  dangers  and  each  needing  the  cooperation  of  the 
other,  existed  not  merely  independent  of  one  another,  but 
often  selfishly  neglectful  of  each  other's  needs  and  best  inter- 
ests. 

Yet  even  without  New  York,  many  of  the  military  resources 
of  the  old  jurisdiction  of  Andros  were  at  Dudley's  command. 
On  the  same  day  on  which  he  received  his  commission  for 
Massachusetts  he  was  commissioned  governor  of  New  Hamp- 


RELATIONS  WITH  NEIGHBORING  COLONIES        135 

shire ;  and,  pursuant  to  the  resolution  of  the  Privy  Council 
made  in  1696,  he  was  directed  to  take  command  of  the  military 
forces  of  both  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  in  time  of  war 
or  danger.  Although  the  territory  over  which  Dudley  ruled 
was  smaller  than  that  governed  by  either  Andros  or  Bello- 
mont,  yet  Dudley  interpreted  the  powers  granted  to  him  to 
the  broadest  extent,  and  sought,  as  far  as  possible,  to  estab- 
lish within  the  narrower  limits  a  system  similar  to  that  which 
had  existed  under  Andros.  He  exerted  himself  to  the  utmost 
in  his  several  capacities;  and  in  trying  to  increase  the  influ- 
ence of  the  crown,  and  at  the  same  time  to  extend  his  own 
personal  power,  he  became  involved  in  quarrels  quite  apart 
from  those  resulting  from  his  administration  in  Massachusetts. 
Massachusetts  had  boundary  disputes  with  all  the  other  New 
England  colonies;  and,  although  the  negotiations  over  their 
settlement  throw  little  light  upon  Dudley's  character  or  ad- 
ministration, they  account  in  some  measure  for  his  widespread 
unpopularity  throughout  New  England.  These  disputes, 
however,  were  minor  matters  compared  with  those  larger 
and  wider  plans  which  he  tried  to  put  into  operation  and 
which  made  him  the  most  hated  man  in  all  New  England. 

In  New  Hampshire  alone  he  was  popular.  His  commission 
and  instructions  for  the  government  of  that  province  were 
almost  identical  with  those  which  he  had  received  for  Massa- 
chusetts ; l  but  in  New  Hampshire  the  quarrels  and  disputes 
were  of  such  a  nature  that,  as  representative  of  the  queen,  he 
could  side  with  the  people  against  the  heirs  of  the  old  pro- 
prietors, and  thus,  instead  of  gaining  the  ill-will  of  the  Assembly, 
he  won  its  confidence  and  support.  He  resided  in  Massachu- 
setts during  his  term  of  office,  and,  though  he  made  frequent 

1  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  ii.  366  et  seq.;  Massachusetts  Histori- 
cal Society,  Proceedings,  ad  Series,  viii.  93  et  seq. 


136  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

journeys  to  New  Hampshire,  relied  upon  his  representative, 
Lieu  tenant- Governor  Usher,  to  bear  the  brunt  of  his  admin- 
istration. 

The  character  of  John  Usher  was  one  of  Dudley's  greatest 
assets  in  his  career  in  New  Hampshire.1  Usher  had  all  of 
Dudley's  unpleasant  qualities  greatly  exaggerated,  but  little 
of  his  ability  and  none  of  his  higher  aims.  His  career,  how- 
ever, is  strikingly  like  that  of  Dudley,  though  little  but  self- 
interest  and  desire  for  gain  can  be  found  in  it.  Like  Dudley, 
he  was  a  native  of  Massachusetts,  a  stationer  of  Boston  with 
a  large  fortune  and  a  fair  reputation  hi  trade.  Like  Dudley, 
he  had  been  employed  as  agent  for  Massachusetts  in  Eng- 
land, and  had  negotiated  for  the  purchase  of  Maine  with  the 
heirs  of  Sir  Ferdinando  Gorges.  Like  Dudley,  again,  he  had 
held  office  under  Sir  Edmund  Andros;  while  Dudley  was 
chief  justice,  Usher  was  treasurer,  and  together  they  formed 
a  part  of  the  working  force  of  the  Council.  Both  had  suffered 
loss  of  popularity  from  that  connection,  and  both  were  anxious 
to  rehabilitate  themselves  in  the  eyes  of  their  countrymen. 
Here  the  resemblance  ends.  Dudley  had  great  personal 
ambition,  and  sought  for  place  and  office  to  increase  his  influ- 
ence and  power ;  but  through  it  all  he  was  guided  by  an  ideal 
policy,  which,  though  it  might  be  hated  in  New  England,  was 
considered  wise  and  statesmanlike  hi  the  mother  country. 
Usher,  on  the  other  hand,  though  equally  ambitious,  was 
merely  seeking  to  increase  his  fortune.  From  the  tune  of  his 
negotiations  with  the  Gorges  heirs  to  the  end  of  his  career, 

1  Belknap's  Histwy  of  New  Hampshire  (i.  288  el  seq.),  gives  a  brief  sketch 
of  Usher.  Usher's  frequent  and  long  reports  to  the  Board  of  Trade  are  in 
manuscript  at  the  Public  Record  Office,  London.  The  replies  of  the  Board  of 
Trade,  also  in  manuscript,  are  in  Colonial  Entry  Book,  New  England,  40,  E. 
Usher's  speeches  are  printed  in  "Journal  of  the  Council  and  General  Assem- 
bly," New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  vols.  ii,  iii  passim. 


RELATIONS  WITH  NEIGHBORING  COLONIES        137 

it  is  hard  to  find  motives  other  than  those  of  a  selfish  land 
speculator. 

In  his  dealings  with  the  Assembly,  Usher  displayed  a  con- 
ception of  the  dignity  of  his  office  and  of  his  own  importance 
greater  than  Dudley  had  ever  manifested,  and  at  the  same 
time  showed  a  marked  lack  of  education  and  political  skill. 
Where  Dudley  succeeded  hi  gaming  his  ends  by  tact  and 
possibly  by  sharp  political  manipulation,  Usher,  scorning 
Dudley's  advice  to  proceed  with  care,  failed  because  of  his 
attempts  to  bluster  and  browbeat  the  Assembly.  Dudley's 
success  was  a  mystery  to  Usher,  and  he  put  the  worst  possible 
construction  upon  it.  "Angells  does  great  things,"  he  scorn- 
fully reported  to  the  Board.1  His  speeches  to  the  Assembly 
were  always  incorrectly  written,  full  of  complaints  and  ill- 
timed  demands;  and  his  frequent  and  long  reports  to  the 
Board  of  Trade,  always  badly  written  and  spelled,  contained 
little  but  the  repetition  of  vague,  ill-natured,  and  petty  charges, 
"Mostly  the  same  matter  over  and  over  again,  and  in  such 
method  as  renders  them  very  difficult  to  us  to  understand; 
Wherefore  We  must  advise  you  for  the  future  onely  to  write 
plaine  matter  of  fact,  and  in  such  a  manner  as  may  be  less 
obscure,"  wrote  the  Board  of  Trade  in  iyo4.2  During  his 
term  as  lieutenant-governor  Usher  continued  to  live  in  Boston, 
and  went  often  to  New  Hampshire  to  summon  a  Council  meet- 
ing, where  little  was  done  but  listen  to  a  speech  from  the 
lieutenant-governor.  So  deeply  was  he  involved  in  suits 
concerning  land  titles  that  Dudley  received  a  special  instruc- 
tion directing  that  Usher  should  "not  intermeddle  in  any 
manner  with  the  appointing  of  Judges  or  Juries."3 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  12,  N.  67. 

2  Colonial  Entry  Book,  New  England  (Ms.),  40,  E.  328. 

3  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  ii.  406. 


138  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

Dudley  could  not  but  be  popular  in  contrast  with  such  a 
lieutenant.  Moreover,  he  increased  his  popularity  by  allow- 
ing members  of  the  independent  faction  to  act  as  councillors 
and  by  leaving  the  government  as  much  as  possible  in  the  hands 
of  the  people.  Such  policy  bore  good  fruit.  The  queen  was 
thanked  for  his  appointment,  and  he  was  welcomed  with  a 
congratulatory  address.1  The  Assembly  voted  him  a  present 
of  five  hundred  pounds ; 2  but  he  "was  not  willing  at  this  time 
of  great  Expences  in  their  Preparation  to  Defend  themselves 
against  the  ffrench  Indians  to  accept  more  than  Two  Hun- 
dred and  fifty  Pounds." 3  The  Assembly,  however,  settled  an 
annual  salary  of  one  hundred  and  sixty  pounds  upon  him,  - 
a  thing  which  he  had  vainly  tried  to  induce  the  Massachusetts 
Court  to  do,  —  rallied  to  his  support  with  complimentary 
addresses  when  he  was  attacked  in  1704 4  and  lyoy,5  and 
finally,  at  the  accession  of  George  I,  petitioned  for  his  con- 
tinuance in  office.  Such  enthusiastic  support,  so  rare  for  a 
colonial  governor  to  receive,  would  seem  suspicious  were  it 
not  for  two  features  of  his  policy,  which  were  both  statesman- 
like and  necessary  and  of  such  a  nature  as  to  win  and  hold  the 
good-will  of  the  people. 

The  plans  which  Dudley  made  for  the  defence  of  the  colony 
were  bound  to  be  popular.  New  Hampshire  was  more  exposed 
to  attack  than  any  of  the  other  colonies  under  his  jurisdiction. 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  n,  L.  28  (New  Hampshire). 
A  full  account  of  his  reception  is  found  in  one  of  his  letters  in  the  Rawlinson 
collection  at  the  Bodleian  Library,  Oxford,  Rawlinson  Mss.,  C.  128,  f .  14. 

1  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  iii.  232. 

J  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  n,  L.  7. 

4  Address  of  the  New  Hampshire  Assembly,  February  1 1 ,  1 703-1 704 :  "  Being 
Sensible  of  Your  Great  care  for  Her  Majesties  Service  .  .  .  We  Humbly  thank 
God  for  our  preservation  .  .  .  and  attribute  much  to  your  constant  care  and 
Sollicitude  for  us"  (ibid.  12,  N.  50). 

8  Addresses  of  the  New  Hampshire  Assembly,  justices,  officers,  merchants, 
and  ministers :  ibid.  13,  R.  90-92. 


RELATIONS  WITH  NEIGHBORING  COLONIES        139 

It  was  also  the  poorest  and  least  populous,  and  the  one  most 
needing  aid  from  the  others.  As  captain-general  of  all  New 
England,  Dudley  at  once  adopted  a  military  policy  which 
included  the  defence  of  all  the  territory  under  his  jurisdiction ; 
but  this  policy,  though  wise  and  popular  with  the  frontier 
colonies,  involved  him  in  difficulties  with  those  that  were  least 
exposed  to  danger.  If  Massachusetts  would  refuse  to  contrib- 
ute to  the  defence  of  Maine  a  part  of  her  own  territory,  it  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at  that  Dudley  found  it  difficult  to  persuade 
Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  to  assist  New  Hampshire. 
Although  he  failed  to  obtain  from  Massachusetts  an  appro- 
priation to  rebuild  the  forts  in  New  Hampshire,  yet  he  utilized 
the  militia,  not  merely  of  Massachusetts,  but  of  Connecticut 
as  well,  in  defending  the  northern  frontier.  He  did  not, 
however,  allow  New  Hampshire  to  relax  her  own  efforts 
for  defence.  The  forts  at  Newcastle  and  Portsmouth  were 
repaired  under  the  direction  of  the  royal  engineers  and  garri- 
soned at  the  expense  of  the  colony ; l  and  Colonel  Hilton,  a 
nephew  of  Dudley,  was  kept  on  almost  continuous  scout  duty 
to  check  the  constantly  threatened  Indian  raids.  All  military 
affairs  Dudley  kept  in  his  own  hands ;  and,  profiting  by  his 
various  methods  of  gaining  information,  he  was  able  to  direct 
operations  very  successfully  on  the  whole.  He  allowed  no 
deviation  from  his  orders,  and  sternly  rebuked  Hilton  for  dis- 
regarding his  directions  and  acting  under  the  command  of 
some  of  the  New  Hampshire  officers.  He  insisted,  moreover, 
that  the  Assembly  should  furnish  and  equip  a  force  which  he, 
not  the  Assembly,  deemed  proportional  to  the  population 
and  wealth  of  the  colony.2  This  military  policy,  successful 

1  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  ii.  445,  452-457,  etc. 

2  Dudley  to  Hilton,  September  24,   1705,  ibid.  453;    also  Dudley  to    the 
Council,  September  24,  ibid.  468. 


140  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

in  the  main,  gave  New  Hampshire  greater  security  than  it 
had  enjoyed  before;  and,  though  it  aroused  the  jealousy  of 
Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  it  gained  for  Dudley  the 
gratitude  of  New  Hampshire. 

Dudley's  most  popular  action,  however,  and  the  one  in 
which  he  was  most  favorably  compared  to  Usher,  was  in  the 
question  of  land  titles.1  When  in  1677  the  judges  had  de- 
cided that  neither  Massachusetts  nor  Mason  had  jurisdiction 
over  New  Hampshire,  the  question  of  the  ownership  of  the 
land  was  left  in  abeyance.  The  rights  and  claims  which 
Mason  may  have  had  were  inherited  and  purchased  by  Samuel 
Allen,  who,  in  turn,  sold  and  mortgaged  a  portion  of  his  claims 
to  Lieutenant-Governor  Usher,  his  son-in-law.  Meantime, 
settlers  had  pushed  into  the  province  and  taken  up  land  on 
rather  doubtful  titles,  and  had  cleared  and  occupied  other 
land  on  no  titles  at  all.  In  order  to  make  their  property  yield 
a  good  return,  Allen  and  Usher  laid  claim  not  merely  to  all  the 
waste  lands  of  the  province,  but  to  the  common  lands  of  the 
towns  as  well.  Writs  of  ejectment  were  brought  against  the 
occupiers  of  this  land,  but  the  courts  of  the  province  found 
verdicts  consistently  in  favor  of  the  defendants.  Allen  then 
carried  his  case  on  appeal  to  England,  where  upon  the  advice 
of  Sir  Edward  Northey,  the  attorney-general,  his  claim  to  the 
waste  lands  was  allowed  and  the  jury  was  directed  to  bring  a 
verdict  to  that  effect. 

Fortified  by  this  decision,  Allen  and  Usher  took  possession 
by  turf  and  twig,  not  merely  of  the  waste  land,  but  of  the 
common  land  in  each  township,  and  brought  a  suit  of  eject- 
ment against  Richard  Waldron  as  a  test  case.  Usher  then 
informed  Dudley  that  the  case  was  to  be  tried,  and  requested 

1  W.  H.  Fry  in  his  New  Hampshire  as  a  Royal  Province,  ch.  iv.,  gives  an 
excellent  account  of  the  land  system  in  New  Hampshire. 


RELATIONS  WITH  NEIGHBORING  COLONIES        141 

him  to  come  and  demand  that  a  special  verdict  be  brought 
for  Allen  and  himself,  as,  indeed,  the  governor  was  directed 
to  do  by  special  instructions  from  the  queen.  Dudley -first 
ordered  the  court  to  be  adjourned  until  he  should  be  in  Ports- 
mouth; then  he  waited  because  of  rumors  of  an  impending 
Indian  raid,  and  finally,  when  he  did  set  out,  was  taken  ill 
with  a  "seasonable  fit  of  gravel,"  and  thus  was  unable  to  be 
present  at  the  trial.  In  his  absence  the  court  not  only  refused 
to  bring  in  the  desired  verdict,  but  again  found  for  the  defend- 
ant and  assessed  the  costs  of  the  entire  trial  upon  Allen.  The 
case  was  once  more  appealed  by  Allen.  An  almost  successful 
attempt  at  compromise  was  cut  short  by  his  death,  and  the 
suit  was  renewed  by  his  son,  Thomas  Allen,  in  1707.  Again 
the  Court  of  Common  Pleas  of  the  colony  refused  the  desired 
writ  of  ejectment ;  and  the  Superior  Court,  despite  directions 
to  bring  in  a  special  verdict  for  the  plaintiff,  brought  a  verdict 
for  Waldron  and  again  put  the  whole  costs  of  the  trial  upon 
the  plaintiff.  Dudley's  sympathy  was  with  the  people 
throughout  the  whole  dispute.  Believing  that  they  had  some 
claims,  in  equity  if  not  in  law,  to  the  lands  they  had  defended, 
he  reported  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  "I  am  firmly  of  the  opinion, 
that  the  poor  people  Her  [Majesty's]  tenants  and  Inhabitants 
have  possessed  those  lands  thirty  years  and  more,  subdued 
them  at  the  coste  of  the  true  present  value,  defended  them  for 
Sixty  years  past  with  the  loss  of  their  blood  and  treasure,  it 
will  be  inconsistant  with  her  Majesty's  grace  to  her  good  Sub- 
jects either  to  Eject  them  or  to  put  them  to  a  rack  rente."  1 
He  therefore  proposed  that  the  queen  should  resume  the  orig- 
inal grant  and  compensate  the  heirs  of  Allen,  and  that,  after 
confirming  the  present  occupiers  in  their  holdings,  the  crown 
should  be  reimbursed  by  the  sale  of  the  remaining  waste  lands. 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  14,  T.  3. 


I42  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

The  determination  of  the  case  was  postponed,  but  before  a 
final  settlement  was  reached  Thomas  Allen  died  and  Usher 
was  removed  from  office,  so  the  suit  was  not  resumed.  Thus 
a  claim  which  had  existed  since  the  founding  of  the  province 
ceased  to  be  urged,  not  through  lack  of  legal  proof,  but  through 
the  ability  of  the  colonists  to  wear  out  the  claimants.1 

Although  Dudley's  suggestion  for  the  settlement  of  this 
protracted  dispute  was  not  adopted,  yet  his  proposed  com- 
promise was  a  wise  and  farseeing  one,  which  showed  an  hon- 
orable escape  from  the  difficulty  for  all  parties  concerned. 
To  the  colonists  it  would  primarily  give  legal  security  for 
their  land  titles;  and  perhaps  such  a  legal  recognition  of 
their  claims  might  have  done  something  to  check  the  spirit  of 
illegality  and  lawlessness  too  often  successful  in  New  England. 
The  rights  of  Allen  and  Usher,  vague  and  unsatisfactory  as  they 
were,  had  been  recognized  by  the  crown :  by  Dudley's  plan,  these 
were  honorably  and  legally  extinguished.  The  crown,  more- 
over, while  remedying  injustice  and  showing  generosity  to 
both  parties,  was  not  to  be  the  loser  in  the  transaction.  Aside 
from  the  solid  financial  returns  which  would  accrue  to  it,  the 
government  was  freed  from  a  perplexing  and  protracted  dis- 
pute, and  might  count  upon  the  gratitude  of  both  parties. 

Thus  by  defending  the  province  and  aiding  the  colonists 
in  time  of  danger,  and  by  taking  a  larger  and  broader  view 
than  usually  characterized  colonial  governors,  Dudley  was 
able  to  retain  the  support  of  New  Hampshire  throughout  his 
administration.2 

1  The  case  of  Allen  vs.  Waldron,  together  with  all  the  necessary  documents, 
is  printed  in  New  Hampshire  Provincial  Papers,  ii.  514-562.     Belknap's  History 
of  New  Hampshire  (i.  308-328)  gives  a  clear  and  well-tempered  account,  as 
does  Batchellor's  edition  of  the  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  ii.  2-3. 

2  Batchellor,  in  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  ii.  3,  takes  an  equally  favorable  view 
of  Dudley's  administration. 


RELATIONS  WITH  NEIGHBORING  COLONIES        143 

With  Connecticut,  his  relations  were  not  so  harmonious. 
He  was  forced  to  bear  much  of  the  inherited  distrust  that  was 
a  legacy  from  the  Andros  administration,  and  to  meet  all  the 
independent  feeling  of  that  colony,  which,  since  the  resump- 
tion of  the  charter,  was  greatly  increased.  His  first  collision 
was  over  military  affairs.  It  has  already  been  seen  that 
Dudley  was  charged  with  the  defence  of  all  New  England, 
and  that  even  within  his  own  province  of  Massachusetts  he 
had  great  difficulty  in  leading  the  General  Court  to  aid  hi 
protecting  the  northern  frontier.  The  same  difficulty  in  an 
increased  degree  faced  him  in  dealing  with  Connecticut. 

In  May,  1703,  Dudley  wrote  to  Fitz-John  Winthrop  that 
he  had  information  which  led  him  to  believe  that  the  French 
were  planning  a  descent  upon  Deerfield,  and  asked  that  the 
Connecticut  towns  might  send  some  aid.1  This  request  was 
granted,  and  orders  were  given  to  send  fifty  men.2  But  the 
attack  upon  Deerfield  did  not  come  until  the  following  year; 
and  meantime,  Dudley  sought  to  utilize  the  Connecticut 
troops  upon  the  eastern  frontier,  and  asked  Winthrop  to 
enlist  a  company  whose  transportation  and  supply  Dudley 
would  furnish.3  To  this,  Winthrop  replied  that  danger  to 
his  own  frontiers  required  him  to  keep  all  his  forces  at  home, 
but  that  he  would  guard  the  Massachusetts  towns  in  the  Con- 
necticut valley  and  would  try  to  furnish  Dudley  with  some 
Indians.4  This  did  not  please  Dudley,  for  he  felt  that  a  single 
company  of  Indians  was  a  small  quota  for  Connecticut  to 
contribute  in  view  of  the  great  expense  laid  upon  Massachu- 
setts ;  and  he  significantly  remarked  in  one  of  his  letters,  "  If 
I  be  broke  here  you  will  stand  but  a  little  while." 5  He  got 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  1 29. 
1  June  9,  ibid.  131.  4  August  23,  ibid.  149. 

'August  16,  ibid.  139.  'October  21,  ibid.  159. 


144  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

no  satisfaction,  however;  Connecticut  thought  it  best  to 
defend  the  towns  in  Hampshire  County  with  her  own  militia, 
merely  allowing  Dudley  to  equip  and  pay  an  exorbitant  wage 
to  a  few  Indians.  Even  these  were  cut  off ;  for  as  a  result  of 
the  Deerfield  massacre  Winthrop  refused  to  allow  them  to 
proceed,  and  laid  the  whole  matter  before  the  Assembly.1 

Dudley  was  not  slow  to  inform  the  Board  of  Trade  of  his 
failure.  On  September  15,  1703,  he  reported,  "In  this  neces- 
sity and  great  charge  I  have  written  in  the  most  pressing  man- 
ner to  the  Governours  of  Rhoad  Island  and  Connecticot  for 
the  Advance  of  but  150  men  between  them,  but  can  obtayn 
nothing." 2  This  brought  a  prompt  rebuke  from  the  people  of 
Connecticut,  one  of  whom  declared  that  it  was  "not  otherwise 
than  it  useth  to  bee";3  and  a  special  commission  of  the 
Connecticut  Assembly  was  directed  to  make  report  of  the 
services  and  expenses  of  the  colony  for  military  affairs  and  to 
lay  an  account  "before  her  Majestic,  to  take  oft  those  cal- 
umnies our  neighbours  one  way  &  the  other  have  laid  on 
us."4  But  Sir  Henry  Ashurst,  now  agent  for  Connecticut 
and  Dudley's  most  bitter  enemy,  put  an  even  worse  construc- 
tion upon  the  whole  affair;  for  he  wrote  to  Winthrop,  "I 
am  senceable  Dud :  &  Co.  doe  complane  of  yor  not  sending 
yor  quota  that  they  may  put  the  money  in  their  pocketts."5 
As  a  result  of  these  complaints  and  charges,  Dudley  was  able  to 
get  little  or  no  aid  for  the  expeditions  which  he  planned  upon 
his  own  authority ;  and  the  assistance  sent  for  the  more  general 
expeditions  devised  in  England  was  but  grudgingly  given. 

1  Winthrop  to  Dudley,  November  4,  ibid.  159;  Winthrop  to  the  Connecti- 
cut Assembly,  March  15,  1703-1704,  ibid.  184. 

4  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  12,  N.  22. 

3  John  Chester  to  Winthrop,  December  u,  1704,  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  276. 

4  July  3,  1704,  ibid-  235-  'July  7,  1705,  ibid.  298. 


RELATIONS  WITH  NEIGHBORING  COLONIES        145 

Aside  from  the  disinclination  to  contribute  to  distant  ex- 
peditions from  which  no  immediate  safety  or  profit  could  be 
gained, — a  disinclination  which  characterized  all  the  colonies,  — 
Connecticut  felt  aggrieved  that  the  command  of  its  militia 
was  vested  in  the  governor  of  Massachusetts.  This  power 
rested  upon  the  opinion  of  the  law  officers  of  the  crown  that 
the  king  could  appoint  a  commander-in-chief  for  the  military 
forces  of  the  colony;  and  it  had  formerly  been  intrusted  to 
Governor  Fletcher  of  New  York.  Although  Fletcher  prob- 
ably had  no  such  experience  as  tradition  describes,  he  reported 
that  he  was  unable  to  exercise  command  of  the  militia  within 
the  limits  of  the  colony.1  Dudley  also  experienced  difficulties 
in  the  exercise  of  his  power.  He  was  too  wise  to  attempt  to 
take  command  of  the  militia  within  the  colony,  as  Fletcher 
essayed  to  do,  but  contented  himself  with  calling  for  troops 
and  insisting  upon  his  right  to  commission  officers  of  the  Con- 
necticut militia  while  they  were  serving  within  Massachusetts. 
Even  this  perfectly  proper  demand  met  with  such  opposition 
that  Dudley  at  the  time  was  forced  to  write  to  Winthrop, 
"Sr  I  pray  to  be  understood  you  shall  withdraw  your  troops 
that  you  give  me  for  her  Majesties  service  when  you  please, 
but  in  this  government  their  commission  and  service  must  be 
under  the  direction  of  her  Majesties  Commission  here." : 
This  may  seem  an  "over-nice"  point,  as  it  did  to  Winthrop,3 
who,  while  insisting  upon  his  right  to  commission  the  officers, 
had  directed  them  to  obey  the  governor  of  Massachusetts; 
but  when  it  is  seen  that  the  Connecticut  troops  were  so  un- 
willing to  obey  the  Massachusetts  authorities  and  so  anxious 
to  get  home  that  they  disbanded  without  orders,4  it  can  be 

1  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  iv.  71. 

2  April  1 8,  1704,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii. 
191.  3  Ibid.  217. 

4  Letters  of  various  officers  to  Winthrop,  July,  1704,  ibid.  237-244. 


146  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

believed  that  Dudley  had  some  justification  for  his  insistence 
on  the  point. 

Connecticut,  as  well  as  New  Hampshire,  was  vexed  by  a 
dispute  concerning  land  titles.  In  Connecticut,  however, 
Dudley  was  forced  to  side  against  the  colonists ;  and  instead 
of  winning  support,  as  he  had  been  able  to  do  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, he  increased  his  already  too  heavy  load  of  unpopularity 
and  odium.  The  Connecticut  case  dealt  with  Indian  rights 
and  titles,  —  always  a  fertile  source  of  litigation,  —  and  was 
not  finally  settled  until  the  reign  of  George  III.  The  dispute 
arose  from  the  fact  that  in  1659  Major  John  Mason,  the  con- 
queror of  the  Pequots,  purchased  certain  Indian  lands  from 
Uncas,  an  Indian  chief.1  From  this  point,  every  step  of  the 
affair  is  involved  in  dispute  and  mystery.  It  seems  that 
Mason  made  over  some  of  his  lands  to  the  colony,  reserving 
certain  rights  for  himself ;  that  the  colony  granted  these  lands 
to  English  proprietors ;  and  that  Uncas  tried  to  sell  the  lands 
a  second  time,  ignoring  the  previous  sale  to  Mason.  The  heirs 
of  Mason  claimed  that  they  were  being  defrauded,  and  the 
colonial  authorities,  hoping  to  extinguish  the  Indian  claims, 
offered  to  repurchase  the  lands  from  the  Indian  claimants. 
But  this  would  have  extinguished  the  claims  of  the  Masons 
as  well ;  hence  they  prevailed  upon  the  Indians  not  to  accept 
the  offer,  and  sought  support  from  England.  They  were 
successful  in  their  attempts,  and  the  Privy  Council  directed 
that  a  commission  should  be  granted  to  Dudley  instructing  him 
to  erect  a  court  in  Connecticut  to  do  justice  to  the  Indians.2 

1  See  The  Moheagan  Indians  against  the  Governor  and  Company  of  Connecti- 
cut:   Case  of  the  Respondents,  to  be  heard  before  the  Privy  Council,  1770,  p.  4. 
This  case  is  treated  at  length  in  Trumbull's  Connecticut,  ch.  xvii. ;    Palfrey's 
History  of  New  England  (iv.  354-366)  and  Doyle's  English  Colonies  in  America 
(iii.  398)  give  summaries.     That  by  Doyle  is  clear  and  temperate  in  tone. 

2  Register  of  the  Privy  Council  (Ms.),  Anne,  ii.  78. 


RELATIONS  WITH  NEIGHBORING  COLONIES        147 

This  was  regarded  in  Connecticut,  with  some  show  of  right, 
as  an  invasion  of  the  colony's  charter  privileges.  It  was 
also  known  that  Dudley  had  great  influence  with  the  Indians ; 
and  it  was  charged  that  he  possessed  several  hundred  acres 
of  land  in  the  disputed  territory,1  though  this  he  unequivo- 
cally denied.2  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  the  trial 
was  tumultuous.  The  Connecticut  managers  "  clamourously 
coinanded  all  persons  to  withdraw  and  not  to  attend  us 
nor  [give]  evidence  some  of  them  boisterously  pulled  down 
the  hand  of  a  witness  swearing  and  drew  him  out  of  the  Court 
and  the  people  spoke  freely  amongst  themselves  of  siezing  us 
at  the  board,  as  I  was  several  times  assured."  3  The  decision 
went  against  Connecticut ;  but  the  colony  refused  to  obey  it 
and  an  appeal  was  carried  to  England,  where  through  the  influ- 
ence of  Sir  Henry  Ashurst  it  was  sustained  and  a  new  trial 
ordered.4  Dudley  naturally  represented  this  episode  to  the 
Board  of  Trade  in  the  worst  possible  light ;  and  from  his 
experiences  in  Connecticut  he  was  justly  confirmed  in  his 
opinion  that  the  chartered  colonies  were  a  source  of  weakness 
and  danger  to  the  crown. 

This  opinion,  which,  to  do  him  justice,  he  had  formed  before 
his  experience  as  governor,  was  still  further  strengthened  by 
his  relations  with  Rhode  Island.  The  first  dispute  with  this 
colony  was  over  military  affairs.  As  in  the  case  of  Connecti- 
cut, Dudley  had  received  a  commission  directing  him  to  take 
command  of  the  militia  of  Rhode  Island ;  but  in  dealing  with 
the  latter  colony,  where  the  Quakers  were  numerous,  he  did 

1  Mason  to  Dudley,  April  13,  1705,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Col- 
lections, 6th  Series,  iii.  329;   Governor  and  Council  of  Connecticut  to  Ashurst, 
August  29,  1705,  ibid.  304. 

2  "I  never  had  one  Acre  of  land  in  that  Colony  of  Connecticut  in  my  Life."  — 
Dudley  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  in  its  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  13,  Q-  78. 

*  Ibid.  p.  68.  *  Trumbull,  History  of  Connecticut,  i.  449. 


I48  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

not  use  the  same  tact  which  he  had  shown  in  Connecticut.  In 
1702,  Dudley,  with  several  members  from  the  Massachusetts 
Council,  went  to  Newport  to  publish  his  commission,  "at 
which  the  Quakers  raged  indecently " ; l  but,  though  meeting 
with  some  opposition,  he  was  allowed  to  take  the  usual  oaths 
of  office.  He  then  ordered  the  militia  to  parade  under  arms ; 
but  Governor  Cranston  referred  him  to  Major  Martindale, 
the  commander,  who,  after  taking  advice,  refused  to  obey, 
alleging  that  the  matter  must  first  be  laid  before  the 
Assembly.2  Dudley  was  greatly  chagrined,  but  was  forced 
to  comply,  and  left  Newport  for  the  Narragansett  country. 
At  Rochester,  a  town  which  he  himself  had  named  when 
he  was  president  of  the  Massachusetts  Council,  he  was 
well  received,  and  was  given  command  of  the  company  in 
spite  of  the  opposition  of  the  people  from  Newport.  As 
a  result  of  his  experiences,  however,  he  put  on  official  record 
in  his  report  to  the  Board  of  Trade  that  "the  government 
of  Rhode  Island  in  the  present  hands  is  a  scandal  to  her 
Majesty's  government."3 

Not  only  was  he  thwarted  hi  taking  official  command  of  the 
forces  of  Rhode  Island,  but  he  could  get  very  little  aid  from 
that  colony.  He  complained  to  the  Board  of  Trade  that, 
although  he  had  written  in  the  most  pressing  terms,  he  could 
obtain  no  help  "notwithstanding  this  province  do's  wholly 
Cover  &  Secure  them  from  danger." 4  As  a  result  of  his  repre- 
sentations, the  Privy  Council  directed  the  Board  to  prepare 
letters  urging  both  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut  to  send  aid 

1  Rhode  Island  Colony  Records,  iii.  462. 

2  This  episode  is  reprinted  from  the  original  documents,  ibid.  459  et  seq. 
The  documents  are  in  Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.)  ii.  118,  and  in  the  Board 
of  Trade's  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  n,  L.  12  and  25. 

3  Rhode  Island  Colony  Records,  iii.  462. 

4  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  12,  N.  22. 


RELATIONS  WITH  NEIGHBORING  COLONIES        149 

to  Massachusetts;1  but  little  was  accomplished.  "Instead 
of  assistance  from  Rhoad  Island  my  next  neighbours,"  Dudley 
wrote  to  the  Board,  "I  have  some  hundred  young  fellows 
fittest  for  the  service  fled  thither  and  entertained  there,  and  I 
have  no  means  to  reduce  them,  but  they  will  double  they1 
province  and  give  me  no  assistance  of  men  or  money." :  This 
statement  cannot  be  taken  literally,  and  Rhode  Island  emphat- 
ically and  expressly  denied  that  she  was  sheltering  deserters.3 
Nor  was  it  true  that  Dudley  gained  no  assistance;  but  the 
amount  he  received  seemed  so  small  in  comparison  with  the 
burdens  which  Massachusetts  was  compelled  to  bear,  and  the 
difficulties  in  obtaining  it,  and  the  technicalities  insisted  upon 
in  granting  it  were  so  burdensome,  that  there  is  some  justifica- 
tion for  his  exaggerated  language. 

"When  I  was  at  Rhode  Island,"  wrote  Mompesson,  chief 
justice  of  New  Jersey,  to  Secretary  Nottingham,  "they  did  in 
all  things  as  if  they  were  out  of  the  dominions  of  the  crown." 4 
It  was  a  part  of  Dudley's  task  to  bring  this  small  but  unruly 
province  within  the  dominion  of  the  crown.  It  has  already 
been  noted  that  he  was  made  captain-general  of  the  colony, 
and  the  difficulties  that  he  experienced  in  the  exercise  of  his 
functions  have  been  described ;  but  he  also  came  into  conflict 
with  Rhode  Island  hi  another  capacity.  He  was  appointed 
vice-admiral  of  the  colony,  and  was  thus  charged  with  the 
enforcement  of  the  navigation  laws  and  the  condemnation  of 
any  prizes  that  might  be  brought  into  the  ports  of  the  colony. 
There  was  ample  need  of  some  manifestation  of  English  control 
if  the  crown  intended  to  enforce  the  mercantile  system  which 

1  Ibid.  N.  30;   also  Register  of  the  Privy  Council  (Ms.),  Anne,  ii.  60. 
*  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  12,  U.  30. 
1  Rhode  Island  Colony  Records,  iii.  547. 
4  Chalmers,  Revolt,  i.  338,  July,  1704. 


150  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

was  established  by  the  navigation  laws ;  for  in  a  period  when 
the  mother  country  was  attempting  to  monopolize  colonial 
commerce,  Rhode  Island  naively  confessed  that  it  had  no 
"direct  trade  with  England."1  Dudley  was  not  successful 
in  putting  an  end  to  all  these  illegalities,  most  of  which  were 
of  long  standing.  Indeed,  he  found  the  task  so  far  beyond  his 
power  that  early  in  his  administration  he  reported  in  despair, 
"My  Lords  it  is  with  everything  in  that  place,  it  is  a  perfect 
Receptacle  of  Rogues  and  Pirates." :  Nevertheless,  he  ap- 
pointed a  deputy-judge  of  admiralty,  and  did  what  he  could  to 
enforce  the  laws  of  England.  Against  the  evasions  of  the  laws 
of  trade  he  could  make  little  headway;  but  he  insisted  that  all 
commissions  for  privateers  and  all  condemnation  proceedings 
should  be  upon  his  authority.  In  so  doing  he  came  into  direct 
conflict  with  Governor  Cranston,  who  was  issuing  commis- 
sions without  regard  to  English  law.  Dudley  enforced  his 
claim  at  the  expense  of  being  charged  with  bribery  and  par- 
tiality ;  and  apparently  put  a  temporary  stop  to  those  irregu- 
larly commissioned  privateers  between  which  and  pirates 
there  was  little  to  choose.3 

Dudley  was  thus  constantly  thwarted  and  hampered  in  the 
exercise  of  his  power  by  both  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island. 
He  saw  that  collective  military  operations  were  impossible, 
and  that  the  crown  was  prevented  from  using  the  military 
strength  of  the  larger  and  better  protected  colonies  for  the 
defence  of  the  weaker  and  more  exposed  communities.  He  saw 

1  Chalmers,  Revolt,  i.  339,  July,  1704. 

1  Dudley  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  in  its  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  12,  M. 

37- 

3  Some  of  the  documents  concerning  the  privateer  Charles  are  in  Rhode 
Island  Colony  Records,  iii.  537  el  seq.  More  important  letters  are  in  the  Board 
of  Trade's  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  12,  P.  36,  61 ;  also  ibid.  13,  Q.  98,  and 
R.  i,  5. 


RELATIONS  WITH  NEIGHBORING  COLONIES        151 

that  it  was  impossible  to  enforce  a  harmonious  policy  upon 
so  many  independent  jurisdictions ;  he  saw  the  commands  of 
the  crown  regarding  both  military  and  judicial  affairs  ignored 
by  both  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  and  the  laws  of  Eng- 
land broken  with  impunity.  He  had  been  personally  insulted ; 
but  that,  he  said,  he  was  willing  to  bear  from  a  consciousness 
of  having  attempted  to  do  his  duty.  He  was,  however, 
obliged  to  report,  "I  am  humbly  of  opinion  that  if  these  coin- 
ands  be  be  easily  passed  over  .  .  .  they  will  presume  to  a  very 
great  Degree,  And  her  Majestys  Comands  will  be  greatly 
slighted  to  the  hurt  of  these  Governments  &  their  just  De- 
pendence and  obedience,  besides  that  I  shall  be  personally  in- 
sulted by  them,  which  if  there  were  nothing  else  in  the  matter 
I  could  well  bear,  knowing  that  therein  I  have  done  my  Duty 
to  her  Majesty  &  Justice  to  her  Good  Subjects  of  the  several 
Provinces,  who  being  equally  her  Majestys  Subjects  ought  to 
be  equally  defended  [illegible]  &  taxed  for  that  end."1 

In  Massachusetts  he  had  difficulty  enough,  though  in  that 
colony  the  charter  defined  and  protected  the  rights  of  the 
crown.  In  neither  Rhode  Island  nor  Connecticut  were  the 
rights  of  the  crown  in  the  least  guaranteed ;  on  the  contrary, 
both  of  these  colonies  were  practically  self-governing  com- 
munities with  their  own  rights  and  prerogatives  denned  and 
guaranteed  against  England.  Dudley's  solution  of  these 
difficulties  was  to  have  these  charters  revoked  and  all  the 
New  England  colonies  consolidated  into  one  jurisdiction. 
This  was  no  new  idea ;  it  was  a  system  with  which  Dudley 
was  thoroughly  familiar  from  his  experience  on  the  Council  of 
Andros,  who  had  ruled  over  the  very  jurisdiction  that  Dudley 
now  desired  for  himself.  But  the  days  of  such  high-handed 

1  Dudley  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  in  its  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  13, 
Q-  37- 


152  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

proceedings  as  had  characterized  the  surrender  of  the  Connect- 
icut and  Rhode  Island  charters  in  the  tune  of  James  II  had 
gone  by.  One  of  the  causes  of  the  Revolution  of  1689  had 
been  the  enforced  surrender  of  the  municipal  charters  in  Eng- 
land; and  William  III  had  recognized  the  necessity  of  pro- 
ceeding with  more  circumspection.  Nevertheless,  it  was 
necessary  to  find  a  solution  for  the  impossible  conditions  that 
obtained  in  some  of  the  colonies.  To  free  Protestant  Mary- 
land from  its  Catholic  proprietor,  Attorney- General  Holt  had 
in  1690  given  an  opinion  that  in  case  of  necessity,  the  king 
might  resume  the  powers  granted  by  a  charter.1  Still  later, 
as  has  been  seen,  it  was  held  that  the  king  might  appoint  a 
captain-general  for  the  military  forces  of  a  colony  while 
allowing  the  civil  government  to  remain  undisturbed;  and 
finally,  in  1694,  it  was  held  that  upon  an  "extraordinary  exi- 
gency" the  crown  might  appoint  a  governor  for  the  civil  as 
well  as  for  the  military  functions  of  the  government.2 

Even  before  his  appointment  as  governor  of  Massachusetts, 
Dudley  had  seen  the  possibilities  of  these  opinions  and  had 
used  his  influence  to  have  the  charters  of  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island  rescinded.3  Although  it  might  seem  perfectly 
proper  to  act  upon  the  opinion  of  the  law  officers  of  the  crown, 
an  act  of  Parliament  would,  beyond  all  question,  be  final. 
Accordingly,  by  Dudley's  influence,  a  bill  was  introduced  into 
the  House  of  Lords  whereby  the  charters  of  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island  were  revoked;  but  for  some  unknown  reason 
the  project  was  abandoned.4  Dudley,  however,  did  not  relax 
his  efforts.  In  one  of  his  first  reports  he  declares  that  little 

1  Chalmers,  Opinions,  65. 

2  Ibid.  66. 

3  Trumbull,  History  of  Connecticut,  i.  429. 

4  Ashurst  to  Winthrop,  May  5,  1701,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Col- 
lections, 6th  Series,  iii.  69.     A  copy  of  the  bill  is  in  Hinman's  Antiquities,  299. 


RELATIONS  WITH  NEIGHBORING  COLONIES        153 

can  be  expected  from  Rhode  Island  "till  Her  Majesty  be 
pleased  to  remove  that  little  shadow  of  Government  there 
remaining.  .  .  ." l  This  fell  in  with  the  ideas  of  the  Lords 
of  Trade,  who,  although  they  answered  that  the  present  ses- 
sion of  Parliament  was  so  far  spent  that  nothing  could  be  done, 
nevertheless,  called  the  attention  of  the  queen  to  their  frequent 
representations  on  the  evils  of  independent  governments. 
Again  in  1704,  the  Board  sent  a  long  representation  to  the 
Privy  Council,  repeating  the  complaints  which  Dudley  from 
Massachusetts  was  urging  against  Rhode  Island  and  which 
Cornbury  from  New  York  was  making  against  Connecticut. 
The  Privy  Council  referred  these  complaints  to  the  law  offi- 
cers of  the  crown,  who  gave  it  as  their  opinion  that  they  did 
not  find  anything  in  the  clauses  of  the  charters  "that  can 
exclude  your  Majesty  (who  has  a  right  to  govern  all  your 
subjects)  from  naming  a  Governor  on  your  Majesty's  behalf, 
for  those  colonies  at  all  times."2  Several  hearings  were  held 
by  the  Privy  Council,  before  which  Sir  Henry  Ashurst  ap- 
peared for  Connecticut;  and  the  matter  was  finally  referred 
to  Parliament. 

Dudley  had  played  his  cards  well  so  far.  Without  doubt  he 
was  actuated  to  a  great  extent  by  personal  ambition  and  by  a 
desire  to  be  made  governor  of  the  same  dominion  over  which 
Andros  had  formerly  ruled.  He  already  had  New  Hampshire 
and  Massachusetts  under  his  jurisdiction,  but  he  was  wise 
enough  not  to  include  New  York  in  his  project.  Instead,  he 
adopted  the  shrewd  course  of  conciliating  Lord  Cornbury, 
the  governor  of  New  York  and  the  cousin  of  the  queen,  thereby 


1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  12,  M.  10. 

2  Chalmers,  Opinions,  66 ;   Board  of  Trade,  Colonial  Entry  Books,  New  Eng- 
land (Ms.),  39,  D.  374,  and  40,  E.  6-14,  358  et  seq.;  Register  of  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil (Ms.),  Anne,  ii.  152,  197,  205,  218,  and  iii.  52,  89. 


154  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

converting  a  possible  rival  and  enemy  into  a  friend  and  ally. 
Thus  these  two  "hammonds"  (Hamans),  as  Sir  Henry 
Ashurst  called  them,1  consolidated  their  influence  and  worked 
together  with  a  fair  prospect  of  success.  The  Connecticut 
agent  was  Dudley's  old  enemy,  and  kept  himself  informed  of 
each  step  of  the  proceedings.  He  believed  that  an  attempt 
was  to  be  made  in  1703-1704,  and  sent  to  Connecticut  for 
material  for  the  defence ; 2  but,  as  has  been  seen,  the  Privy 
Council  was  more  deliberate,  for,  giving  both  the  accuser  and 
the  accused  opportunity  to  prepare  their  charges  and  their 
defence,  it  did  not  act  till  1705-1706.  As  a  result  of  the  hear- 
ings before  the  Privy  Council,  a  bill  was  again  introduced  into 
the  House  of  Lords,  where  it  was  again  thrown  out,  as  Ashurst 
reports,  on  the  first  reading.3 

It  was  a  difficult  political  combination  which  Dudley  had 
set  out  to  attack,  and  it  was  extremely  fortunate  for  both  Con- 
necticut and  Rhode  Island  that  they  were  able  to  combine 
their  defence  and  join  their  different  sources  of  influence.  The 
reputation  of  Rhode  Island  was  none  too  good.  Too  many 
representations  from  too  many  royal  officials  had  been  made 
concerning  her  lawlessness,  her  smuggling,  and  her  piracies, 
to  allow  it  to  be  supposed  that  she  was  a  hardly  abused  colony. 
It  was  fortunate  for  her  that  she  was  able  to  put  Connecticut 
in  the  front  rank  of  her  defence.  Connecticut,  by  judicious 
yielding  and  waiting  for  a  more  favorable  time  to  insist  upon 
her  contentions,  had  gained  almost  all  she  desired  and  had 
surrendered  practically  none  of  her  privileges.  Connecticut 
thus  contributed  to  the  common  defence  a  good  name  com- 

1  Ashurst  to  the  Governor  and  Council  of  Connecticut,  April  22,  1707,  Massa- 
chusetts Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  378. 

2  Ashurst  to  Wait  Winthrop,  July  25,  1703,  ibid.  \.  119. 

3  Ibid.  iii.  326-327,  May  21,  1706. 


RELATIONS   WITH  NEIGHBORING  COLONIES        155 

bined  with  a  great  reputation  for  persistence,  and,  in  addition, 
all  the  influence  which  the  indefatigable  Ashurst  could  stir 
up  among  the  nonconformists.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Quaker  element,  strong  in  Rhode  Island,  employed  William 
Penn.  In  certain  periods  of  Perm's  career,  his  intervention 
would  have  been  harmful ;  but  now  he  was  in  high  favor,  and 
as  proprietor  of  the  largest  province  in  America  and  as  the 
leading  Quaker  in  England,  he  was  able  to  exert  considerable 
influence.  In  addition  to  all  these  various  hostile  agencies, 
the  bill  had  the  misfortune  to  be  introduced  by  a  divided 
ministry,  which  may  have  withdrawn  it  for  the  sake  of  har- 
mony. To  whatever  combination  of  forces  the  defeat  was 
due,  Dudley's  immediate  hopes  were  at  an  end ;  and,  although 
as  late  as  1709  Sir  Henry  Ashurst  warned  the  Governor  and 
Council  of  Connecticut  that  "ye  Cannanite  is  in  ye  land  & 
watches  for  yor  halting,"1  there  is  no  evidence  that  either 
Dudley  or  the  Board  of  Trade  renewed  the  attempt  during 
the  reign  of  Queen  Anne.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  evi- 
dence that  Dudley  accepted  the  defeat  with  good  grace ;  for 
his  complaints  concerning  the  neighboring  colonies  diminish, 
and  he  seems  to  have  attempted  to  make  the  best  of  conditions 
which  he  believed  were  not  for  the  best  interests  of  England. 
The  colonists  could  see  in  this  attempt  nothing  but  another 
example  of  Dudley's  ambition,  which  they  thought  was  ever 
ready  to  sacrifice  their  welfare  to  gain  its  own  ends ;  and  it  is 
true  that  his  plan  for  colonial  union  would  have  destroyed  the 
independence  of  two  colonial  governments,  and  would  have 
increased  the  control  of  England  and  the  influence  of  the 
crown.  However  dangerous  it  might  be  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  colonists,  to  the  home  government  the  plan  had 
great  merits.  By  such  a  union,  the  administration  would  have 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  v.  191-194. 


156  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

been  made  easier,  the  laws  more  harmonious,  the  commercial 
policy  of  England  more  possible  of  execution,  and  above  all 
more  effective  military  service  would  have  been  rendered  by 
the  colonists.  However  pardonable  such  a  recommendation 
might  have  been  from  an  English  official,  from  a  native  it 
seemed  the  act  of  a  traitor,  and  Dudley  was  so  regarded.  Yet 
it  must  be  remembered  that  from  1681  he  had  identified  him- 
self with  the  movement  to  increase  the  control  of  England, 
and  his  present  action  was  but  a  consistent  result  of  his  prin- 
ciples. Doubtless  Dudley  was  ambitious  and  desirous  of 
increasing  his  own  power  and  position ;  but  the  fact  that  his 
views  were  presented  before  he  took  office  and  were  urged  at 
the  expense  of  personal  popularity  while  he  was  in  office,  and 
that  he  attempted  loyally  to  make  the  best  of  conditions  after 
the  ministry  had  abandoned  his  plans  for  colonial  union, 
points  to  some  other  motive  than  mere  personal  ambition. 
Dudley's  ideas  were  the  result  of  his  long  colonial  experience 
and  of  the  knowledge  which  he  had  gained  in  his  long  and 
varied  career  as  a  colonial  administrator;  they  were  the 
views  of  an  English  official  rather  than  of  a  leader  of  the 
colonial  spirit  of  individualism  as  exemplified  in  New  England. 
Though  his  motives  were  questioned  and  distrusted  by  his 
fellow-colonists,  his  ideas  and  attempts  at  colonial  union  were 
wise  and  statesmanlike. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE    CURRENCY  AND  BANKING   PROBLEMS  DURING 
DUDLEY'S  ADMINISTRATION  AS   GOVERNOR 

THE  poverty  of  Massachusetts  emphasized  the  need  of  a 
colonial  currency.  In  the  early  years  there  was  practically 
no  specie  in  the  colony,  and  the  settlers  were  driven  first  to 
barter  and  then  to  the  use  of  furs  as  a  medium  of  exchange. 
The  most  common  medium,  however,  was  wampum,  which 
continued  to  be  legal  for  taxes  until  1649  and  for  private  debts 
until  I66I.1  As  trade  and  wealth  increased,  the  colonists 
gradually  accumulated  a  small  stock  of  silver,  chiefly  Spanish 
coins,  some  of  which  remained  in  the  colony  and  became  the 
circulating  medium.  Since  this  silver  was  of  different  value 
from  the  English  sterling  silver  coins,  the  General  Court  in 
1642  voted  that  a  Spanish  dollar  in  Massachusetts  should  be 
equivalent  to  five  shillings  sterling.2  Perceiving  that  the 
European  trade  drew  off  the  little  stock  of  coin  circulating 
in  the  colony,  the  colonists  in  1652  determined  to  set  up  a 
mint  of  their  own  to  coin  a  purely  colonial  currency,  which 
they  hoped  would  remain  at  home.3  An  additional  reason  for 
having  a  mint  was  found  in  the  fact  that  the  coins  brought  in 
trade  were  frequently  clipped,  sweated,  and  of  light  weight, 
"whereby  many  people  were  cousened,  and  the  Colony  in 
danger  of  being  undone  thereby."4  Finally,  according  to 
Hutchinson,  the  trade  with  the  West  Indies  brought  in  con- 

1  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  ii.  279;   iv.  pt.  ii.  4. 

J  Ibid.  ii.  29.          *  Ibid.  iv.  pt.  i.  84.          *  Felt,  Massachusetts  Currency,  30. 


158  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

siderable  uncoined  bullion,  which  had  been  the  spoil  of  the 
pirates.1 

The  coins  produced  at  the  colonial  mint  were  purposely 
made  to  contain  less  silver  than  the  English  sterling  shillings, 
and  soon  passed  in  London  at  twenty-five  per  cent  discount.2 
This  fact,  however,  was  considered  an  advantage  by  the 
colonists,  since  the  coins  were  designed  solely  for  circulation  in 
Massachusetts  and  their  exportation  was  forbidden  by  law.3 
The  natural  result  of  this  depreciation  was  that  sterling  and 
Spanish  silver  soon  appreciated  in  value,  a  fact  recognized  by 
the  General  Court  in  1672,  when  the  value  of  the  Spanish 
dollar  was  raised  from  five  to  six  shillings.4  These  values 
were  increased  from  time  to  time  by  the  action  of  the  courts,5 
and  silver  passed  according  to  a  legal  but  fictitious  value. 
This  state  of  things  caused  Colonel  Quarry,  an  acute  observer 
of  colonial  affairs,  to  advise  the  government  to  reduce  "all 
Coyns  of  America  to  one  standard,"  since  this  would  make 
most  of  the  money  centre  in  England.6  Accordingly  the  queen 
issued  a  proclamation  fixing  the  value  of  the  coins  which  most 
commonly  circulated  in  America,  and  directing  that  these 
should  pass  according  to  the  proclaimed  values  rather  than 
at  the  values  assigned  them  in  the  colonies.7  Dudley  laid 
this  proclamation  before  the  General  Court  at  its  session  in 
1704 ; 8  but,  although  various  bills  were  introduced  to  make 
its  provisions  effective,  nothing  was  done,  and  the  Council 
finally  voted  that  the  governor  should  issue  a  proclamation 

1  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  i.  164. 

2  Felt,  Massachusetts  Currency,  32 ;  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  iv.  pt.  i.  84. 

3  Massachusetts  Colony  Records,  iii.  353. 

4  Ibid.  iv.  pt.  ii.  533. 

B  Douglass,  Discourse  concerning  the  Currencies  of  the  British  Plantations  in 
America,  ed.  C.  J.  Bullock,  in  Economic  Studies,  ii.  303-304. 

6  Felt,  Massachusetts  Currency,  38. 

7  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  viii.  472.  8  Ibid. 


CURRENCY  AND  BANKING  159 

officially  publishing  that  of  the  queen.1  Although  Dudley 
did  this  and  the  governors  of  the  other  colonies  followed  a 
similar  course,  the  queen's  proclamation  was  nowhere  obeyed 
save  in  the  Barbadoes ; 2  and  the  first  attempt  of  the  govern- 
ment to  regulate  the  value  of  money  contrary  to  natural  laws 
failed. 

The  next  attempt  on  the  part  of  Massachusetts  to  increase 
her  currency  was  unfortunately  more  pernicious  than  the 
simple  depreciation  of  the  specie  com,  and  was  followed  by 
a  train  of  disastrous  consequences.  The  unexpected  return 
of  the  ill-fated  expedition  led  by  Sir  William  Phips  against 
Quebec  in  1690  produced  a  financial  crisis.  "The  govern- 
ment was  utterly  unprepared  for  the  return  of  the  forces. 
They  seem  to  have  presumed,  not  only  upon  success,  but 
upon  the  enemy's  treasure  to  bear  the  charge  of  the  expe- 
dition."3 Instead  of  a  profitable  venture,  the  government 
found  "forty  thousand  pounds,  more  or  less,  now  to  be  paid, 
and  not  a  penny  in  the  treasury  to  pay  it  withal  .  .  .  [and 
the]  sailors  and  soldiers  now  upon  the  point  of  mutiny." 4  To 
meet  this  difficulty  the  General  Court  authorized  the  emis- 
sion of  £7000  in  bills  of  credit,  and  soon  increased  this  to 
£40,000 ; 5  and  it  voted  that  these  bills  should  be  receivable 
for  public  dues  at  five  per  cent  premium.6  A  tax  was  levied  to 
redeem  them,  and  the  bills  were  regarded  as  merely  loans  in 
anticipation  of  the  collection  of  taxes;  for,  as  Sewall  says, 
they  were  "not  made  for  want  of  Money;  but  for  want  of 

1  March  3,  1704-1705,  ibid.  473. 

2  Felt,  Massachusetts  Currency,  60. 

3  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  i.  356. 
*  Mather,  Magnolia,  i.  173. 

5  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  vii.  375 ;  Records  of  the  General  Court 
(Ms.),  vi.  185. 

6  Davis,  Currency  and  Banking,  i.  10-13 ;  Records  of  tlte  General  Court  (Ms.), 
vi.  170,  171,  185. 


160  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

Money  in  the  Treasury." a  But  in  spite  of  the  action  of  Phips, 
who  "chearfully  laid  down  a  considerable  quantity  of  ready 
money  for  an  equivalent  parcel  of  them," 2  the  bills  first  passed 
at  a  discount,  the  soldiers  getting  no  more  than  twelve  or 
fourteen  shillings  in  the  pound.  Then,  as  the  time  for  the 
payment  of  taxes  came,  the  notes  went  to  a  premium,  and 
thus  the  loss  fell  upon  the  first  holders.3  However,  by  adher- 
ing scrupulously  to  the  method  of  redeeming  the  bills  by  taxes, 
and  by  offering  five  per  cent  premium  when  they  were  taken  in 
payment  for  taxes  (an  offer  which  was  duplicated  by  the  town 
of  Boston),4  the  government  was  able  to  put  out  in  issues  and 
re-issues  about  £82,0x30  of  these  bills  between  1690  and  1702, 
which  were  accepted  willingly  and  passed  freely  in  the  colony.5 
Thus  on  Dudley's  accession  to  office,  he  found  the  colony 
committed  to  a  financial  policy  from  which  there  seemed  little 
hope  of  escape.  Throughout  the  greater  part  of  his  adminis- 
tration, England  and  France  were  at  war,  and  Massachusetts 
was  burdened  with  taxes  for  the  defence  of  her  frontiers  and 
for  the  various  expeditions  that  she  sent  against  Canada. 
Consequently  it  was  a  difficult  task  to  force  the  unwilling 
assembly  to  vote  taxes  to  retire  the  bills  of  credit;  and  the 
task  was  still  more  difficult  from  the  fact  that  many  of  the 
assembly  held  that  the  bills  were  not  an  evil,  but  a  genuine 
advantage  to  the  colony  in  that  they  supplemented  the  defi- 
ciences  of  the  colonial  currency.  Dudley's  difficulties  were 

1  Sewall's  Diary,  November  3,  1712,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Col- 
lections, 5th  Series,  vi.  366. 

1  Mather,  Magnolia,  i.  174. 

J  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  i.  357. 

4  Davis,  Currency  and  Banking,  i.  19 ;  Record  Commission,  Boston  Town 
Records,  viii.  24-25. 

*  Davis,  Currency  and  Banking,  \.  14,  18.  "In  New  England  sterling  ex- 
change was  133  in  1702,  a  rate  corresponding  exactly  to  the  rating  of  the  dollar 
at  6s."  —  Bullock,  Monetary  History  of  the  United  States,  39. 


CURRENCY  AND  BANKING  161 

still  further  increased  by  the  fact  that  early  in  his  administra- 
tion he  lost  the  confidence  and  gained  the  ill-will  of  the  House, 
by  his  attempts  to  force  a  favorable  action  upon  the  questions 
of  establishing  a  fixed  salary  for  the  governor  and  rebuilding 
the  fortifications  at  Pemaquid.  Indeed,  Dudley  would  have 
accomplished  little  had  not  the  Council  come  to  his  aid. 
Although  the  Council  of  Massachusetts  owed  its  election  to 
the  House,  yet  so  strong  was  habit  that  the  lower  house  usually 
chose  men  of  wealth  and  position  to  sit  hi  the  Council.  This 
custom  Dudley  strengthened  by  the  frequent  use  of  his 
prerogative  to  negative  the  election  of  persons  who  were 
irreconcilably  opposed  to  his  policies.  Thus,  although  the 
Council  might  side  with  the  House  upon  purely  political 
questions,  yet  upon  financial  matters  its  very  composition  led 
it  to  oppose  the  radical  propositions  of  the  deputies. 

As  the  war  continued,  the  expenses  for  military  affairs  in- 
creased beyond  all  expectation.  To  meet  these  expenses, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  supply  the  growing  commerce  with  a 
sufficient  circulating  medium,  the  General  Court  continued 
the  policy  of  issuing  bills  of  credit.  These  issues  were  made 
every  year  of-  Dudley's  administration,  and  varied  from 
£10,000  in  1702  to  £58,000  in  1715 ;  in  no  year  after  the  war 
began  did  they  fall  below  £20,000.  In  all  £474,000  were  put 
in  circulation.  The  acts  or  joint  resolutions  by  which  these 
bills  were  issued  provided  in  every  instance  for  a  tax  or  special 
fund  to  redeem  them.  Up  to  1705  the  taxes  of  the  succeeding 
year  were  appropriated  to  cancel  the  amount  issued ;  in  that 
year,  however,  the  redemption  of  the  issue  was  postponed 
until  1707.*  The  custom  once  started,  it  became  increasingly 
easy  for  the  General  Court  to  mortgage  the  future,  and  the 
date  of  redemption  was  farther  and  farther  postponed.  From 

1  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  i.  580. 


162  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

1706  to  1711  three  years  was  the  accepted  time;  then  it  was 
increased  to  five  years ; x  and  the  last  issue  made  in  Dudley's 
administration,  on  August  27,  1715,  was  not  to  be  redeemed 
until  I722.2 

From  the  first,  Dudley  seems  to  have  taken  the  position  that 
all  the  benefits  which  might  accrue  to  the  colony  from  the 
circulation  of  these  bills  would  be  lost  if  the  province  did  not 
scrupulously  adhere  to  its  agreement  in  retiring  them.  For 
example,  at  one  of  his  first  meetings  with  the  General  Court, 
May  23,  1703,  he  said,  "The  particular  Business  you  have 
before  you  is  The  Making  good  of  the  Votes  of  the  two  last 
Assemblies  in  Raising  the  Tax  for  the  Bills  already  Issued." 3 
In  this  instance,  the  House  at  once  complied,  and  a  tax  was 
levied  in  accordance  with  the  previous  votes.4  Again  in  1708, 
when  the  habit  of  postponement  was  becoming  fixed,  he  was 
forced  to  urge  the  House  to  do  its  duty,  and  in  his  address 
said :  "We  are  all  sensible  of  the  great  service  &  Benefit  that 
we  have  by  the  Bills  of  Credit.  It  behooves  us  to  be  very 
jealous  of  their  Disparagement,  and  as  We  always  deposited  a 
just  Fund  for  their  Support,  so  I  think  It  may  be  proper  to 
make  some  Act  of  this  Assembly  to  prevent  their  being  under- 
sold, and  thereby  Defamed."5  The  House  again  came  to  his 
support  and  he  was  able  to  carry  out  his  plan.6  Indeed, 
throughout  the  actual  continuance  of  the  war,  he  succeeded 
in  forcing  the  Court  to  adopt  his  financial  policy. 

When  peace  was  declared,  however,  and  actual  danger  did 

1  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  ix.  181. 

2  Ibid.  421;    Douglass,   Discourse  concerning  the  Currencies  of  the  British 
Plantations  in  America,  ed.  C.  J.  Bullock,  in  Economic  Studies,  ii.  305 ;     Feit, 
Massachusetts  Currency,  63;   Sumner,  History  of  American  Currency,  17. 

3  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  vii.  386-387. 

4  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  i.  520. 

5  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  325. 

6  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  i.  624. 


CURRENCY  AND  BANKING  163 

not  threaten  the  colony,  he  encountered  stronger  opposition ; 
and  his  continued  unpopularity  and  final  overthrow  were  due 
to  his  firm  stand  upon  financial  matters.  In  1715,  when  the 
House  was  attempting  to  reduce  from  £22,000  to  £16,000  the 
taxes  on  polls  and  on  personal  and  real  estates,  which  were 
pledged  for  the  redemption  of  the  bills  for  that  year,1  the  gov- 
ernor, with  the  support  of  the  Council,  protested  most  earnestly. 
"At  the  last  Session  of  the  Assembly,"  he  said,  "I  earnestly 
recommended  to  you  the  raising  of  Twenty  two  Thousand 
Pound,  granted  and  determined  by  two  former  Assemblies  of 
this  Province  for  the  Drawing  in  of  that  Sum  of  Province  Bills 
raised  &  emitted  for  the  Support  of  the  late  War  and  the 
Troubles  with  the  Indians,  Which  said  Acts  of  the  Assembly 
were  passed  by  the  Representatives  &  Council,  of  ye  Province, 
and  presented  to  the  Govern1"  to  be  sign'd  &  Passed  the  Seal 
in  due  Manner,  &  accordingly  in  that  Form  sent  Home  &  are 
thereof  Recorded  &  Accepted  by  the  Right  Honble  the  Lords 
of  the  Council  of  Trade  &  Plantations  .  .  .  and  it  is  easy  to 
see  how  the  Credit  of  those  Bills  must  needs  sink  &  fail  if  the 
present  or  future  Assembly  shall  upon  any  Pretense  whatever, 
break  in  upon  those  Clauses  in  the  said  Act  for  the  Time  of 
Payment,  Which  I  am  willing  to  give  as  my  Opinion  We  have 
no  power  to  do,  Nor  have  we  any  reason  to  project  it,  For 
we  are  at  Peace  and  very  capable  to  discharge  our  Debts,  in 
such  Proportions  as  they  are  determined.  ...  I  therefore 
earnestly  recommend  the  consideration  of  the  Tax,  Impost,  and 
Excise  to  your  present  Resolves,  &  hope  that  you  will  make 
no  Delay  but  pass  through  them  in  two  or  three  days,  not 
admitting  any  other  business  this  Session."  Nevertheless, 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  ix.  472. 

*  Ibid.  470.     Also  printed  in  C.  H.  J.  Douglas's  Financial  History  of  Massa- 
chusetts, 119. 


1 64  TEE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

the  House  persisted  in  its  policy,  and  passed  a  vote  re- 
tiring only  half  the  amount  called  for  and  postponing  the 
retirement  of  the  remainder  until  1722.  The  Council  now 
came  to  the  governor's  aid  by  non-concurring  in  the 
vote  of  the  House,  and  after  debates  and  conferences 
lasting  over  a  week  forced  the  House  to  comply  with 
Dudley's  request.1  By  this  action,  however,  party  lines 
were  sharply  drawn  and  a  large  number  of  the  country 
members  and  of  the  merchants  whose  affairs  were  involved 
were  offended. 

The  province  was  soon  divided  into  two  parties  over  the 
question  of  the  currency.  A  small  party  composed  of  the 
richer  merchants  in  Boston  were  in  favor  of  calling  in  the  bills 
of  credit  and  resuming  specie  payment ;  but  this  party 
formed  only  a  small  portion  of  even  the  conservative  class. 
The  majority  of  the  conservatives,  recognizing  the  need  of 
some  increase  of  the  circulating  medium,  were  in  favor  of  an 
issue  of  new  bills  which  should  be  vested  in  a  board  of  trustees 
and  should  be  loaned  out  by  the  government  on  the  security 
of  mortgages.  To  this  party,  which  was  known  as  the  public 
bank  party,  were  drawn  the  minority  who  were  in  favor  of  re- 
tiring all  the  bills  of  credit.  The  more  radical  faction,  known 
as  the  Land  Bank  party,  composed  of  those  whose  affairs 
were  involved,  and  of  many  of  the  country  members  of  the 
House  who  were  the  debtor  class  and  who  believed  that  a 
greater  volume  of  currency  would  improve  their  condition, 

1  July  22-29,  I7I5>  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),ix.  472  et  seq.;  Massa- 
chusetts Acts  and  Resolves,  ii.  17.  By  previous  resolves  (Acts,  i.  668,  687)  £5000 
and  £17.000  respectively  were  to  be  raised  by  taxes  on  polls  in  1715.  The  act  of 
1715  grants  £2000  from  the  treasury,  £2000  interest  on  loan  money,  £7000 
from  impost,  and  £11,000  from  taxes  levied  on  polls.  The  total  £2 2,000  was 
thus  raised,  but  not  in  accordance  with  the  previous  resolve.  This  may  be 
the  reason  for  Mr.  Davis's  assertion  that  the  General  Court  did  not  follow  the 
advice  of  the  governor  (Davis,  Currency  and  Banking,  i.  56). 


CURRENCY  AND  BANKING  165 

were  in  favor  of  the  establishment  of  a  private  'bank  which 
should  have  power  to  emit  paper  currency  and  advance  it  to 
them  on  the  security  of  mortgages  held  on  their  land.  To 
this  party  were  added,  whether  because  of  their  sincere  belief 
in  the  remedy  proposed  or  because  of  their  natural  hostility 
to  the  Governor  and  Council,  those  enemies  of  Dudley  who 
posed  as  democratic  leaders  and  were  ever  ready  to  find  a 
pretext  on  which  to  attack  him. 

Dudley  took  a  keen  interest  in  this  discussion.  He  and 
his  party,  representing  as  they  did  the  official,  wealthy,  and 
conservative  element  in  the  colony,  were  naturally  to  be  found 
on  the  side  of  the  public  bank ;  but  the  attitude  which  they 
held  on  this  question  represented  a  complete  change  of  ideas, 
and  well  illustrated  the  conservative  influence  which  their 
official  responsibilities  exerted  upon  them.  In  the  early  dis- 
cussions in  regard  to  banking,  Dudley  and  his  friends  occupied 
positions  quite  similar  to  those  now  held  by  the  radical  party. 
In  1661-1662  John  Winthrop,  while  in  England,  was  admitted 
a  fellow  of  the  Royal  Society,  and  submitted  to  the  council  of 
that  body  "some  proposalls  concerning  a  way  of  trade  &  banke 
without  money."1  Furthermore,  although  unsuccessful  in  in- 
teresting the  Society  in  his  scheme,  he  corresponded  with 
various  of  his  friends  concerning  his  plan.2  In  1681  the  Rev- 
erend John  Woodbridge,  who  was  a  brother-in-law  of  Dudley 
and  a  connection  of  Winthrop's,  published  a  pamphlet  which 
probably  set  forth  Winthrop's  ideas.3  It  proposed  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  bank,  —  that  is,  the  emission  of  notes  on  the 

1  American  Antiquarian  Society,  Proceedings,  New  Series,  iii.  272. 

2  See  Trumbull,  ibid.;  Davis,  Currency  and  Banking,  ii.  62-68;   Bullock, 
Monetary  History  of  the  United  States,  31. 

'"Severals  relating  to  the  Fund,"  reprinted  in  Davis,  Tracts,  1-12.  This 
pamphlet  is  ascribed  to  Woodbridge  by  Trumbull,  in  American  Antiquarian 
Society,  Proceedings,  New  Series,  iii.  268. 


1 66  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

security  of  land,  —  and  asserted  that  this  had  been  success- 
fully done  in  1671  and  I68I.1 

A  few  years  later  another  plan,  the  suggestion  of  Captain 
John  Blackwell,  an  intimate  friend  of  Dudley,  was  presented 
to  the  Council  over  which  Dudley  himself  was  presiding.2 
By  this  scheme,  a  number  of  subscribers  were  to  unite  and 
choose  managers  and  assessors.  The  latter  were  to  have  the 
real  power  and  to  direct  the  policy  of  the  bank ;  and  the  four 
men  named  by  initials  were  Joseph  Dudley,  William  Stoughton, 
Wait  Winthrop,  and  John  Blackwell.  The  capital  was  to  be 
provided  by  subscriptions  of  £500  each  from  the  twenty-one 
managers,  making  hi  all  a  total  of  £10,500.  Instead  of  sub- 
scribing cash,  the  managers  might  substitute  lands  or  goods 
for  the  security  of  the  circulation,  thus  doing  away  with  any 
idea  of  a  cash  capital.  That  a  close  connection  between  the 
bank  and  the  government  was  to  be  maintained  is  seen  from 
the  fact  that  three  of  the  four  assessors  were  members  of  the 
Council,  and  also  from  the  significant  statement  that  twelve 
of  the  one  hundred  and  twelve  shares  of  the  profits  were  to  go 

1  Trumbull  (ibid.  275)  says  that  a  "bank  of  credit  was  started  in  Massa- 
chusetts in  1671,  and  was  carried  on  in  private  for  many  months  —  though 
without  issue  of  bills,  and  that,  ten  years  later,  a  private  bank  of  credit  was 
established  and  began  to  issue  bills  in  September,  1681."  So  also  Bullock, 
Monetary  History  of  the  United  States,  31 ;  and  Weeden,  Economic  and  Social 
History  of  New  England,  329.  But  Davis  (Currency  and  Banking,  ii.  72)  takes 
the  more  reasonable  ground  that  these  were  but  notes  of  individuals,  to  which 
the  colony  was  accustomed,  and  that  the  mere  statement  hi  the  pamphlet 
that  "He  did  in  September  begin  to  pass  forth  Bills"  is  not  sufficient  for  the 
assertion  that  a  private  land  bank  was  established. 

2 This  plan  is  probably  the  original  of  "A  Model  for  Erecting  a  Bank  of 
Credit,"  published  in  London,  1688,  and  reprinted  in  Boston,  1714  (Davis, 
Tracts,  35-68;  see  also  Davis,  Currency  and  Banking,  ii.  75).  Felt  (Massa- 
chusetts Currency.  46-47)  gives  the  preamble  of  the  Council  vote,  but  falls  into 
the  error  —  in  which  he  is  followed  by  Trumbull  —  of  thinking  that  this  bank 
was  a  chartered  corporation  (see  Davis,  Currency  and  Banking,  ii.  79,  note  i). 
The  clearest  account  of  this  scheme  is  by  Davis,  ibid.  75-81. 


CURRENCY  AND  BANKING  167 

to  friends  of  the  bank.  Moreover,  Dudley,  writing  on  Decem- 
ber 22,  1687,  to  Sir  Edmund  Andros,  as  it  is  conjectured, 
says,  "Further  speech  about  the  matter  I  judge  not  con- 
venient until  we  are  further  advanced  and  have  received  your 
express  direction  to  attend  a  very  good  and  large  dividend  of 
profit." 1  It  is  probable  that  nothing  was  actually  done  by  the 
partners;  for  Black  well  wrote  in  July,  1688,  that  the  whole 
scheme  had  been  abandoned  and  that  the  press  was  to  be 
sold.2  The  plan  was  evidently  a  purely  colonial  one,  and  it 
may  be  surmised  that  it  did  not  appeal  to  Sir  Edmund  Andros 
and  the  other  English  officials.  At  all  events,  it  was  not 
renewed  until  just  before  Dudley  came  to  Massachusetts  as 
governor.  In  1700,  a  committee  was  appointed  to  consider 
the  methods  of  reviving  and  supporting  the  trade  of  the 
colony.3  In  March,  1700-1701,  this  committee  reported  in 
favor  of  establishing  a  bank  of  credit  which  should  have  the 
monopoly  to  issue  notes  during  the  term  of  years  for  which 
it  was  chartered.  This  plan,  however,  was  rejected,  and  the 
matter  did  not  come  up  again  until  i7i4.4 

On  February  i  and  8,  1713-1714,  the  Boston  News  Letter 
contained  an  advertisement  requesting  all  persons  interested 
in  the  project  of  erecting  a  bank  of  credit  to  meet  at  the  Ex- 
change Tavern,  where  subscriptions  would  be  received,  and 
a  petition  would  be  prepared  to  present  to  the  governor  and 
the  Assembly.5  This  petition  was  probably  presented,  for  on 
February  16  the  Assembly  appointed  a  joint  committee  of  the 
House  and  the  Council  to  consider  whether  it  was  expedient 
to  issue  a  medium  of  exchange  to  supply  the  deficiency  of 

1  Quoted  in  Davis's  Currency  and  Banking,  ii.  78. 

2  Ibid.  79-80;  Andros  Tracts,  Hi.  84. 

8  Records  oj  tlie  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  no,  June  25,  1700. 
4  Davis,  Currency  and  Banking,  ii.  81.  5  Ibid.  82. 


1 68  THE   PUBLIC   LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

money ;  and,  if  the  members  were  of  the  opinion  that  it  was 
advisable  to  issue  such  a  medium,  they  were  to  consider 
whether  it  were  best  to  found  it  upon  a  public  or  a  private 
bank.  On  the  following  day,  the  committee  reported  that  it 
was  advisable  to  issue  some  medium  of  exchange  and  that  it 
should  be  founded  on  a  public  rather  than  on  a  private  fund.1 
This  report  was  accepted  and  the  House  voted  to  appoint  a 
joint  committee  to  consider  it ;  but  for  some  reason  the  Coun- 
cil did  not  concur  and  the  matter  was  left  over  until  the  fall. 
Although  the  General  Court  had  expressed  a  decided  opin- 
ion in  favor  of  the  emission  of  bills  based  upon  public  rather 
than  private  credit,  the  private  bank  party  continued  its  agita- 
tion; and  to  keep  the  matter  before  the  public  reissued  a 
pamphlet  published  in  London,  in  1688,  which  described  the 
plans  put  forward  by  Dudley  and  Blackwell  thirty-five  years 
before.2  This  pamphlet  discusses  the  subject  under  seven 
heads,  beginning  with  "Some  things  premised  for  Introduc- 
tion, touching  Banks  in  general,"  in  which  it  is  asserted  that 
"Money,  whether  Gold  or  Silver,  is  but  a  measure  of  the 
value  of  other  things,"  that  the  lack  of  gold  and  silver  money 
"hath  put  divers  Persons  and  Countreys  upon  contrivances 
how  to  supply  that  Deficiency,  by  other  Mediums ;  some  of 
which  have  happily  pitch'd  upon  that  of  Banks,  Lumbards, 
and  Exchange  of  Moneys  by  Bills,  which  have  thriven  with 
them.  .  .  .  The  best  Foundation  for  such  an  Attempt  is, 
that  of  Real  and  Personal  Estates,  instead  of  the  Species  of 
Gold  and  Silver."  The  bank  is  then  defined  as  an  emission 
of  bills  to  the  half  or  two-thirds  value  of  the  land  or  goods 
mortgaged  by  the  projectors.  These  projectors  were  to  be 
organized  as  managers  and  assessors,  the  latter  having  the 

1  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  ix.  354  et  seq. 
*  See  above,  pp.  165-166. 


CURRENCY  AND  BANKING  169 

oversight  and  control  of  the  affair.  The  rules  of  the  bank 
are  set  forth,  and  then  follow  certain  examples  from  practical 
trade  to  show  the  usefulness  of  the  plan.  In  the  sixth  part 
objections  are  met  in  the  form  of  questions  and  answers: 
"Q.  i.  Can  I  have  Monyes  for  Bank-bills,  when  I  have  Occa- 
sion? Answ.  i.  'Tis  not  propounded  to  be  a  Bank  of  Moneys 
(which  is  liable  to  inexpressible  &  unforeseen  hazards)  but  of 
Credit  to  be  given  forth  by  Bills ;  not  on  Moneys  advanced, 
as  in  other  Banks ;  but  (on  Lands  or  Goods,  as  aforesaid,)  to 
supply  such  as  cannot  get  Moneys  (by  reason  of  its  scarcity) 
with  whatsoever  may  be  had  for  Moneys."  Lastly,  the 
general  advantages  of  the  scheme  are  summed  up  in  the  con- 
clusion "That  there  will  arise  many  more  Convienences  & 
Advantages,  by  this  Bank,  to  such  Countreys  where  they  shall 
be  erected,  than  have  been  enumerated,  in  the  several  fore- 
going instances ;  or,  well,  can  be.  .  .  ." l 

This  plan,  an  evident  repetition  of  the  Dudley-Blackwell 
scheme,  was  put  forward  to  attract  attention  and  possibly  to 
forestall  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  government.  In  addi- 
tion, the  projectors  presented  a  plan  of  their  own,  which  with 
certain  modifications  was  later  embodied  in  a  pamphlet  en- 
titled "A  Projection  for  Erecting  a  Bank  of  Credit  in  Boston, 
New-England.  Founded  on  Land  Security."  2  This  was  in 
the  nature  of  an  agreement  to  be  signed  by  the  subscribers, 
and  opened  with  the  familiar  statement,  "Whereas  there  is  a 
sensible  decay  of  Trade  within  His  Majesties  Plantations  in 
New-England,  for  want  of  a  Medium  of  Exchange  .  .  .  and 
there  being  no  other  Expedient  in  our  view  .  .  .  but  by 
Establishing  a  Fund  or  Bank  of  Credit  upon  Land  Security, 

*"A  Model  for  Erecting  a  Bank  of  Credit,"  London,  1688,  reprinted  1714; 
conveniently  found  in  Davis's  Tracts,  35-68. 
*  Printed  1714 ;  reprinted  ibid.  69-84. 


170  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

which  may  give  the  Bills  Issued  there-from  a  General  Currency 
amongst  us,"  etc.  The  capital  of  the  proposed  bank  was 
fixed  at  £300,000,  of  which  no  subscriber  was  to  take  more 
than  £4000 ;  and  every  subscriber  was  required  to  make  over 
his  real  estate  to  the  amount  of  his  subscription  as  a  security 
for  the  notes  to  be  issued.  The  subscribers  agreed  to  give  the 
bills  issued  the  same  currency  as  the  bills  of  the  province,  and 
any  person  mortgaging  real  estate  could  obtain  a  loan  in  bills 
according  to  the  rules  of  the  bank.  Regulations  establishing 
the  interest  paid  on  the  bills  at  five  per  cent,  and  directions 
for  the  valuation  and  mortgaging  of  certain  kinds  of  property, 
were  given.  Not  the  least  interesting  of  the  provisions  were 
those  which  provided  that,  when  £150,000  had  been  issued, 
there  should  be  paid  out  of  the  profits  £400  a  year  for  estab- 
lishing a  charitable  school  in  Boston,  provided  the  town  would 
agree  to  receive  the  bills  of  the  bank  for  taxes.  In  addition, 
the  sum  of  £200  a  year  was  to  be  given  to  Harvard  College 
for  the  establishment  of  professorships  and  scholarships. 

The  projectors,  thus  frankly  advocating  cheap  and  ready 
money,  held  several  meetings  and  decided  to  prepare  a  petition 
to  the  General  Court  and  endeavor  to  enlist  the  support  of  the 
governor.  Dudley  was  placed  in  a  difficult  position.  The 
Land  Bank  party  had  used  his  plans  of  thirty-five  years 
before  to  awaken  interest  in  its  own  scheme,  and  had  modelled 
its  bank  after  the  one  which  he  sought  to  establish  in  1686. 
In  an  interview  which  the  members  of  the  party  held  with 
him,  Dudley,  they  asserted,  told  them  that  he  opposed  the 
establishment  of  any  form  of  a  public  bank  and  declared 
"that  he  would  be  the  first  Person  that  would  take  out  Three 
Hundred  Pounds  of  their  Bills  to  promote  their  Credit,  and 
encourage  them  to  proceed  to  take  Subscriptions,  hi  order  to 
lay  it  before  the  General  Assembly  for  their  Allowance ;  and 


CURRENCY  AND  BANKING  171 

that  he  would  do  all  that  lay  in  his  power  to  promote  it ;  assur- 
ing them  that  he  would  Write  Home  in  their  favour,  by  setting 
forth  the  Necessity  of  such  a  Projection."  1  Aside  from  this 
assertion  in  a  partisan  pamphlet  full  of  violent  attacks  upon 
the  governor  and  his  friends,  there  is  no  evidence  that  Dudley 
favored  the  plans  of  the  Land  Bank  party.  Perhaps  he  was 
not  altogether  frank  in  the  interview,  and  to  avoid  imme- 
diate difficulties  appeared  to  consent  to  a  scheme  which  he 
knew  would  be  negatived  either  in  the  Council  or  in  England ; 
but  that  he  ever  really  was  prepared  to  urge  the  plan  cannot 
be  believed.  Dudley's  career  as  governor  was  marked  by 
insistence  upon  sound  economic  principles,  and  his  supporters 
were  found  not  among  the  Land  Bank  party,  but  among  the 
conservatives  of  the  Council.  Even  if  he  had  inclined  to 
such  dubious  doctrines,  his  son  Paul  would  either  have  re- 
strained him  or  have  taken  a  course  different  from  the  one  he 
adopted;  for  as  soon  as  the  petition  was  presented  Paul 
Dudley,  as  attorney-general  of  the  province,  offered  a  memorial 
in  opposition,  wherein  he  called  attention  to  the  faults  of  the 
project.2  As  a  result  the  Council  passed  an  order  prohibiting 
the  promoters  from  printing  their  schemes  or  emitting  notes 
until  they  should  lay  their  proposal  before  the  General  Court.3 
Although  this  order  was  printed  in  the  News  Letter,  it  was 
followed  by  an  advertisement  announcing  that  the  promoters 
would  continue  to  receive  subscriptions.4 

At  the  fall  session  of  the  General  Court,  Dudley  laid  the 
matter  before  the  House  in  a  speech  wherein  he  said  that  the 
House  was  undoubtedly  familiar  with  the  proposition  of 

1  "A  Vindication  of  the  Bank  of  Credit,"  .  .  .  1714,  reprinted  ibid.  147- 
166. 

1  Davis,  Currency  and  Banking,  ii.  87. 

3  Ibid.;  also  Council  Records  (Ms.),  August  20,  1714. 

4  Davis,  Currency  and  Banking,  ii.  87. 


172  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

several  gentlemen  to  supply  the  defect  in  the  currency  "by 
a  certain  method  of  Bills  of  Credit  founded  upon  Land  secu- 
rity by  way  of  mortgages  made  to  themselves."1  Although 
he  made  no  specific  recommendation,  he  hoped  that  the  House 
would  take  such  action  "as  might  secure  the  Honor  of  his 
Majesties  Government  over  us  &  be  for  the  Security  &  Benefit 
of  the  Subject  in  their  Trade  &  Commerce."  On  October  22, 
a  joint  committee  of  the  House  and  the  Council  was  appointed, 
and  on  October  28,  it  presented  its  report.2  This  report  must 
have  been  a  severe  blow  to  the  Land  Bank  party,  for  it  recom- 
mended the  emission  of  £50,000  of  bills  of  credit,  which  should 
be  vested  in  the  hands  of  trustees  and  loaned  out  on  mort- 
gages at  five  per  cent  interest.3  Thus  in  its  encounter  with  the 
General  Court,  the  bank  party  received  a  check. 

The  stand  taken  by  the  government  "lessened  the  party  for 
the  private  bank,  but  it  increased  the  zeal,  and  raised  a  strong 
resentment  in  those  which  remained"  ; 4  and  it  precipitated  a 
war  of  pamphlets.  Paul  Dudley  came  to  the  support  of  the 
government  and  criticised  the  project  in  the  guise  of  "A 
Letter  to  John  Burril  Esq.,  Speaker  to  the  House."5  To 
Paul  Dudley  the  bank  was  a  "Pandora's  Box,"  from  which 
would  come  dire  consequences  to  the  colony,  both  constitu- 
tionally, since  the  House  had  no  power  to  erect  such  a  bank, 
and  economically,  since  further  emissions  of  doubtfully  secured 
paper  currency  were  not  the  proper  remedies  for  the  financial 
troubles  of  the  colony.  "But."  said  he,  "if  we  Import  from 
Abroad,  more  than  we  can  Pay  for,  by  what  we  Produce  our 
selves,  or  Purchase  from  others  with  our  own  Commodities, 

1  October  20,  1714,  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  ix.  417. 

1  Ibid.  421-425. 

J  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves,  i.  750. 

4  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  ii.  190. 

8  Boston,  1714;   reprinted  in  Davis's  Tracts,  85-110. 


CURRENCY  AND  BANKING  173 

we  shall  unavoidably  grow  Poor,  and  a  Million  of  Paper- 
Money  won't  help  the  matter  at  all."  This  able  pamphlet, 
with  its  sound  but  scathing  criticisms,  brought  rejoinders 
from  the  other  party.  "A  Letter  from  One  in  Boston  to  his 
Friend  in  the  Country  "  was  an  obvious  attempt  to  defend  the 
project  and  win  the  votes  of  some  of  the  country  members  of 
the  House.1  Both  this  and  "A  Vindication  of  the  Bank  of 
Credit " 2  contain  not  merely  the  economic  arguments  of  the 
time,  but  also  savage  attacks  upon  Paul  Dudley  and  the  gov- 
ernor, who  is  accused  of  bad  faith  in  having  at  one  tune  favored 
the  plan.  The  struggle  in  the  colony  became  so  bitter  that  it 
"divided  towns,  parishes,  and  particular  families."3  The 
hostility  of  the  Land  Bank  party  naturally  centred  upon  the 
governor  and  his  family,  who  were  rightly  held  to  be  largely 
responsible  for  the  failure  of  the  project.  Nor  did  Dudley's 
activity  stop  with  the  defeat  of  the  scheme  in  the  colony.  He 
learned  that  the  Land  Bank  party  was  about  to  carry  its  case 
to  England,  and  to  obtain  there  the  charter  which  the  General 
Court  refused  to  grant.  He  therefore  sought  "with  consider- 
able Warmth"  to  have  most  emphatic  instructions  to  oppose 
the  petition  sent  to  Jeremiah  Dummer,  the  agent  for  Massa- 
chusetts.4 Instructions  were  sent,  though  not  so  emphatic 
as  the  governor  wished  ;  but  even  these  were  unnecessary,  for, 
as  Dummer  reported,  the  Board  of  Trade  would  not  hear  him 
on  the  subject,  "for  they  were  so  clear  in  it  that  they  answered 
me  at  once  that  no  such  thing  should  be  done." 5 

1  Printed  1714;    reprinted  ibid.  111-145. 

2  Printed  1714;   reprinted  ibid.  147-166. 

1  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  ii.  189. 

4Sewall's  Diary,  November  30,  1714,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  5th  Series,  vii.  27. 

6  April  5,  1715,  Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.),  H.  273-277.  The  petition  of 
the  Land  Bank  party  is  in  the  Bodleian  Library,  Rawlinson  Mss.,  C.  128,  f.  21. 


174  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

Thus,  believing  that  the  defeat  of  the  project  both  in  Massa- 
chusetts and  in  England  was  due  to  the  governor,  the  private 
bank  party  brought  all  its  influence  to  bear  to  bring  about  the 
removal  of  Dudley  and  the  appointment  of  some  other  man 
who  would  be  more  pliable.  Although  opposed  by  Dummer 
and  Sir  William  Ashurst,  it  at  length  found  an  instrument  in 
one  Colonel  Elizeus  Burgess,  a  mercenary  office-seeker,  who 
had  at  one  time  been  an  aide  to  Stanhope.  What  inducement 
the  private  bank  party  offered  Burgess  is  not  known ;  but  he 
promised  not  to  interfere  with  its  plans  and  to  use  his  influence 
with  Stanhope  to  bring  about  Dudley's  removal.  In  this  he 
was  successful ;  for,  although  Dudley  had  in  a  measure  lived 
down  his  unpopularity  in  Massachusetts,  his  friends  and  sup- 
porters were  no  longer  in  power  in  England,  and  the  new  minis- 
ters sought  to  find  positions  for  their  own  supporters.  How- 
ever, the  private  bank  party  reaped  little  advantage  from  the 
removal  of  Dudley,  for  Dummer  paid  Burgess  £1000  to  resign 
the  office  in  favor  of  Shute,  a  man  pledged  to  oppose  all  the 
schemes  of  the  radical  party;  and  Dudley,  though  removed 
from  office,  had  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  his  opposition 
had  postponed  the  financial  disasters  which  later  overtook 
Massachusetts. 


CHAPTER   DC 
DUDLEY'S  FIGHT  TO  RETAIN  OFFICE 

To  retain  his  post  during  the  thirteen  troubled  years  of  his 
administration  Dudley  was  forced  to  be  continually  on  the  de- 
fensive. A  royal  governor  attempting  to  carry  out  the  policy 
of  England  could  not  hope  for  the  support  of  the  province ; 
rather  must  he  be  prepared  to  encounter  bitter  opposition  in 
the  performance  of  his  duty.  His  every  act  would  be  judged 
by  the  colonists,  not  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  advantage 
to  England,  nor  even  from  that  of  the  need  of  the  colonies  as  a 
whole,  but  from  the  effect  that  such  a  policy  would  have  upon 
Massachusetts.  Nor  had  Massachusetts  a  clearly  formulated 
policy  which  a  royal  governor  could  adopt ;  hardly  a  question 
other  than  the  safety  of  the  colony  could  be  brought  forward 
for  which  a  governor  could  obtain  united  support.  The  same 
feeling  of  individualism  which  arrayed  the  colony  against 
England  was  to  be  found  in  the  parties  and  factions  within 
the  colony.  The  House  was  jealous  of  the  Council,  the 
country  towns  of  the  wealth  and  influence  of  Boston,  and  the 
people  of  any  exercise  of  executive  authority ;  while  all  these 
tendencies  were  generally  united  in  common  opposition  to  any 
manifestation  of  royal  prerogative. 

The  personal  popularity  of  a  governor  might,  as  in  the  case 
of  Bellomont,  silence  some  of  the  most  malicious  attacks  and 
prevent  concerted  attempts  to  obtain  his  removal,  but  no 
personal  popularity  had  ever  enabled  a  royal  governor  to 
cany  out  completely  the  desires  of  England.  Dudley,  more- 
ls 


176  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

over,  was  not  popular.  To  the  difficulties  of  the  task  of  en- 
deavoring to  enforce  a  distrusted  English  policy  were  added 
all  the  enmities  he  had  made  during  his  previous  administra- 
tion in  the  colony.  Thus  he  always  encountered  bitter  and 
unrelenting  enemies  who  brought  personal  spite  and  zeal  to  the 
conflict  and  made  at  least  two  concerted  attempts  to  accom- 
plish his  removal. 

His  most  consistent  enemy  was  Sir  Henry  Ashurst,  who 
from  the  tune  when  he  was  first  employed  by  the  Massachu- 
setts agents  in  1690  never  ceased  to  oppose  Dudley.  As  has 
been  seen,  he  discredited  Dudley  in  Parliament  and  blocked 
his  ambition  to  succeed  Sir  William  Phips,  and  he  thwarted 
Dudley's  plan  to  unite  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  under 
one  jurisdiction.  These  services  he  was  never  tired  of  re- 
counting; but  his  enmity  found  expression  in  more  active 
ways,  and  from  1702  to  1710  he  was  in  communication  with 
Dudley's  opponents,  seeking  examples  of  his  misrule  and 
actively  pressing  for  his  removal.1  In  season  and  out  of  sea- 
son, he  was  on  the  alert  and  left  no  means  untried  to  secure 
his  object.  Near  the  end  of  his  life,  when  Dudley's  position 
seemed  secure,  Ashurst  wrote,  "Every  body  thinkes  him  an 
excellent  Gov1  but  Sr  H.  A."2 

Next  to  Ashurst,  though  not  so  consistent  in  their  enmity, 
were  the  Mathers,  father  and  son,  with  all  the  interests  and 
influence  that  they  could  control.  This  enmity  was  inherited 
from  the  revolutionary  period ;  but  just  previous  to  Dudley's 
appointment  a  reconciliation  had  taken  place,  the  price  for 
which  can  only  be  inferred.  There  is  evidence  to  believe 

1  Ashurst  to  Wait  Winthrop,  August  28,  1704:  "I  shuld  bee  glad  ^  a  safe 
hand  to  haue  the  acco.  of  all  D[udley's]  proceedings  in  New  England.  ..." 
(Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  v.  131). 

1  Ashurst  to  Increase  Mather,  May  10,  1710,  ibid.  216. 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  177 

that  Cotton  Mather  sought  Dudley's  friendship  and  favored 
his  appointment  in  the  hope  that  he  might  utilize  the  gov- 
ernor's influence  in  the  quarrels  in  which  both  Cotton  and 
Increase  Mather  were  involved.  Dudley  had  hardly  landed, 
however,  before  he  offended  the  Mathers  by  consulting  with 
their  opponents ;  and  the  reconciliation,  founded  on  such  an 
insecure  basis,  was  seriously  undermined.1  Then,  when  by 
the  election  of  Leverett  to  the  presidency  of  Harvard  College 
the  ambition  of  the  Mathers  seemed  forever  blocked,  the  friend- 
ship was  converted  into  open  and  bitter  hostility.2  Their 
disappointment  was  increased  when  they  remembered  how 
completely  Dudley  had  been  in  their  power  at  the  time  of  the 
Revolution,  and  when  they  recognized  that  without  their  aid 
he  probably  could  never  have  been  appointed  governor ;  but, 
as  will  be  seen,  their  very  vindictiveness  and  bitterness  reacted 
against  them,  for  in  their  eagerness  to  press  home  every  charge 
against  the  governor,  they  included  ridiculous  rumors  which 
discredited  their  whole  effort. 

Though  Sewall  and  Wait  Winthrop  were  both  connected 
with  Dudley  through  the  marriages  of  their  children,  they 
also  opposed  him.  Winthrop  was  in  constant  communication 

1  "The  WRETCH  went  unto  those  men  [Byfield  and  Leverett]  and  told  them, 
that  I  had  advised  him  to  be  no  ways  advised  by  them;   and  inflamed  them 
into  an  implacable  rage  against  me. "  —  Diary  of  Cotton  Mather,  June  16,  1702, 
ibid,  ist  Series,  iii.  138. 

2  Quincy  (History  of  Harvard  University,  i.  ch.  viii)  gives  an  account  of  the 
Mathers'  attempts  to  utilize  Dudley's  influence  and  their  anger  at  their  failure 
to  do  so.     He  also  credits  Dudley  with  making  the  suggestion  that  the  college 
obtain,  by  a  resolution  rather  than  by  an  act  of  the  General  Court,  the  revival 
of  the  charter  of  1650,  and  suggests  that  it  was  through  Dudley's  influence  that 
this  action  was  not  questioned  in  England.     This  course  is  contrary  to  the 
policy  that  Dudley  usually  pursued  in  his  relations  with  the  English  authorities, 
but  it  is  typical  of  his  sharp  political  practice.     Although  he  alienated  the 
Mathers,  he  gained  the  support  of  the  rich  and  influential  group  to  which 
Brattle  and  Leverett  belonged. 


1 78  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

with  Ashurst,  and  was  a  possible  candidate  for  the  post  of 
governor  or  lieutenant-governor  if  Dudley  should  be  removed. 
Sewall,  personally  honest,  was  a  time-server,  ever  ready  to  con- 
gratulate the  governor  on  his  success,  but  secretly  working 
for  his  downfall  and  for  the  appointment  of  Higginson.1  The 
opposition  of  these  men  differed  from  that  of  the  Mathers; 
for  Dudley  remained  on  friendly  terms  with  Winthrop  and 
Sewall  throughout  his  life,  and  his  personal  relations  with 
them  were  close  and  intimate.  Their  antagonism  was  merely 
a  piece  of  personal  politics,  —  SewalTs  to  protect  his  own 
interest  and  reputation,  Winthrop's  to  gain  advantage  and 
satisfy  his  own  ambition.  Of  a  still  different  character  was 
the  opposition  of  Elisha  Cooke.  He  was  one  of  the  survivors 
of  the  old  revolutionary  party,  and  was  opposed  alike  to  the 
compromises  of  the  Mathers  and  to  the  avowed  English  policy 
of  Dudley.  He  deprecated  what  he  considered  the  surrender 
of  Massachusetts  in  the  acceptance  of  the  charter,  and  bitterly 
resented  his  exclusion  from  the  Council  by  Phips.  Repre- 
senting ideas  so  contrary  to  those  which  Dudley  held,  it  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  governor  refused  him  a  seat  in 
the  Council,  nor  is  it  strange  that  Cooke  steadily  attempted 
to  thwart  Dudley  and  seek  his  removal.  His  enmity,  however, 
was  open  and  consistent,  quite  different  from  the  selfish  incon- 
sistency of  the  Mathers  and  the  temporizing  treachery  of 
Sewall  and  Winthrop. 

Closely  connected  with  the  opposition  of  Cooke,  and  form- 
ing the  party  of  which  he  was  the  leader  and  on  which  he  could 
rely,  were  the  remnants  of  the  old  revolutionary  party.  This 
group  was  particularly  active  in  some  of  the  country  towns, 
and  included  not  merely  those  who  opposed  the  new  regime 

1  Sewall  to  Ashurst,  February  25, 1 707-1 708,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  6th  Series,  i.  359. 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  179 

and  hated  Dudley  as  the  betrayer  of  the  charter,  but  those 
who  distrusted  executive  control  of  any  sort.  Another  group 
of  opponents  was  found  in  New  Hampshire.  Here  Lieu- 
tenant-Governor  Usher  and  those  who  sought  for  profit  in 
land  speculation  from  the  proprietors  were  always  ready  to 
procure  and  sign  petitions  for  Dudley's  removal.  Equally 
active  and  troublesome  were  the  disappointed  place-hunters 
and  the  merchants  whom  Dudley  had  been  obliged  to  offend 
by  the  enforcement  of  the  navigation  laws.  Their  names  were 
found  on  every  petition  to  remove  him ;  and  their  affidavits 
beginning  with  the  vague  "It  is  reported,''  though  satisfying 
to  the  Mathers,  were  not  believed  in  England.  Finally, 
toward  the  end  of  his  administration,  Dudley  was  confronted 
by  the  Land  Bank  party,  a  faction  more  dangerous  than  any 
other  combination  he  had  faced,  for  it  was  founded  upon  a 
definite  principle  rather  than  upon  jealousy  and  envy.  This 
party,  operating  hi  England  under  the  changed  conditions 
consequent  on  the  accession  of  George  I,  was  successful  in 
bringing  about  Dudley's  removal. 

Against  these  opponents,  Dudley  had  to  gather  a  party  on 
which  he  could  rely.  The  more  wealthy  merchants  in  Boston, 
whose  interest  it  was  to  support  him  as  the  representative 
of  the  conservative  party  in  banking,  favored  him.  The 
contractors  and  purveyors  of  the  army  were  on  his  side.  In 
country  towns  he  won  friends  by  giving  commissions  in  the 
militia.  He  kept  an  open  house  during  the  session  of  the 
Court,  and  set  a  lavish  table,  to  which  he  took  care  to  invite 
the  country  members,  who  were  sometimes  won  over  by  this 
means.  And  in  spite  of  his  failings  of  temper  he  possessed  a 
good  deal  of  tact  and  personal  charm,  by  which,  when  every- 
thing else  failed,  he  could  sometimes  transform  an  enemy  into 
a  friend. 


i8o  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

\ 

This  party,  strong  as  it  was  in  Massachusetts,  would  not 
have  been  sufficient  to  keep  him  in  office  without  a  powerful 
backing  in  England.  It  has  been  seen  that  he  made  himself 
acceptable  to  patrons  as  diverse  as  Blathwayt,  the  Bishop  of 
London,  and  Lord  Cutts.  Blathwayt  was  Dudley's  sponsor 
from  his  entrance  into  English  intrigue  on  his  first  mission  to 
England ;  and  he  remained  his  constant  supporter.  As  clerk 
of  the  Privy  Council,  member  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  or  mem- 
ber of  Parliament,  he  acquiesced  in  Dudley's  first  appointment 
as  president  of  the  Massachusetts  council,  suggested  his 
service  in  New  York,  and  very  probably  procured  him  the  post 
under  Lord  Cutts.  Blathwayt  and  Dudley  together  attempted 
to  thwart  the  reversal  of  the  Leisler  attainder ;  and  Blathwayt 
urged  Dudley's  appointment  as  governor  in  1695  and  1702, 
and  advised,  supported,  and  defended  him  throughout  the 
greater  part  of  his  administration. 

Though  Blathwayt's  influence  seemed  almost  permanent 
in  the  Board  of  Trade,  Dudley  sought  to  bring  himself  before 
the  attention  of  other  English  politicians.  In  this  endeavor 
he  was  aided  by  John  Chamberlayne,  whose  friendship  he 
retained  throughout  his  administration.  Besides  possessing 
influence  as  a  literary  and  scientific  man,  active  in  the  affairs 
of  the  church  and  busy  about  the  court,  Chamberlayne  was 
an  inveterate  letter- writer.  He  was,  in  short,  just  the 
person  to  act  as  Dudley's  confidential  representative  to  keep 
him  informed  concerning  the  feeling  in  England.  Aside  from 
the  enjoyment  which  he  had  in  the  task,  Chamberlayne 
expected  the  more  solid  reward  of  the  position  as  English 
agent  for  Massachusetts;  but  this  Dudley  could  not  obtain 
for  him.1  Through  Chamberlayne  he  was  informed  of  the 

1  "I  am  very  sorry  to  find  that  the  business  of  the  Agency  drives  as  heavily 
as  Pharaoh's  charriots  in  the  Red  Sea."  —  Chamberlayne  to  Dudley,  June  22, 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  181 

various  complaints  against  him.  His  pressing  for  his  salary 
and  his  action  in  refusing  the  councillors  made  a  bad  impres- 
sion on  some  of  his  supporters  in  England,  who  feared  that  he 
was  too  precipitate.1  He  was  warned  that  Jehu  was  recog- 
nized by  his  furious  driving,  and  that  although  he  was  out  of 
sight  the  disturbance  which  he  raised  could  be  heard.2  Blath- 
wayt  also  sent  him  a  warning ; 3  and  Chamberlayne  advised 
him  to  allay  the  feeling  against  him  by  "judicious  letters"  to 
the  Bishop  of  London  and  the  lord  president  of  the  Council, 
and  to  Nottingham  and  Weymouth.  Dudley  not  only  wrote 
the  letters,  but  sent  a  present  of  furs,  which  strengthened 
Nottingham  to  his  interest.4  Thus,  by  means  of  flattery, 
presents,  and  possibly  bribes  Dudley  was  able  to  keep  his 
friends  at  court  and  to  count  on  their  support  in  the  frequent 
attempts  to  remove  him.  He  had,  as  Ashurst  said,  "such 
insinuation,  such  parts,  that  only  Satan  himself  hath  greater  "  ; 5 
and  so  long  as  his  friends  were  influential  at  the  court  of  Queen 
Anne,  he  kept  his  office. 

The  efforts  to  remove  Dudley  began  almost  simultaneously 
with  his  appointment;  for  in  1702,  Chamberlayne  reported 
that  there  was  an  attempt  to  displace  him  and  to  unite  Massa- 
chusetts under  the  rule  of  "a  certain  noble  peer  that  ows  you 
io£."6  This  attempt  came  to  nothing;  but  Ashurst  wrote 
to  Winthrop  to  keep  him  informed  of  Dudley's  proceedings, 

1704,  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  544.  About 
a  year  before,  July  24,  1703,  Chamberlayne  had  written,  "The  antient  and 
repeated  assurances  your  Excf  was  pleas'd  to  give  me  of  the  business  of  an 
Agent,  even  whilst  your  affaires  were  sub  judice,  leave  me  no  room  to  imagin 
that  you  can  ever  alter  your  kind  intentions  in  that  matter,  and  therefore  we 
will  wait  with  patience  for  an  alteration  in  your  government"  (ibid.  540). 

1  October  27,  1702,  ibid.  532.  *  Ibid.  529. 

1  December  25,  1703,  ibid.  542.  4  Ibid.  539. 

8  Ashurst  to  Winthrop,  August  24,  1708,  ibid.  v.  173. 

'  Ibid.  iii.  530.    (Lord  Cornbury.) 


182  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

adding  that  he  hoped  to  see  New  England  in  other  hands.1 
To  discredit  Dudley  and  at  the  same  time  to  save  the  Con- 
necticut charter,  Ashurst  opposed  the  scheme  for  colonial 
union ;  but  the  failure  of  Dudley's  plans  did  not  seem  to  the 
Board  of  Trade  a  sufficient  cause  for  his  removal.  The  most 
concerted  and  active  attempt,  however,  was  made  in  1707. 
In  June  of  that  year,  a  petition  was  presented  to  the  queen 
asking  for  Dudley's  removal.2  The  first  signer  of  the  petition 
was  Nathaniel  Higginson,  a  Massachusetts  merchant,  who  had 
gone  to  England  in  1674,  entered  the  sendee  of  the  East  India 
Company,  and  was  now  in  London  corresponding  with  his 
former  friends,  Sewall  and  the  Mathers.  Among  the  other 
signers  were  William  Partridge,  formerly  lieutenant-governor 
of  New  Hampshire,  his  son  Richard,  Thomas  Allen,  who  was 
probably  the  son  of  the  proprietor,  and  John  Hinks  of  that 
province.  The  petition  represented  the  discontented  faction 
in  New  Hampshire  which  resented  Dudley's  attitude  in  the 
dispute  over  land  titles.  Higginson  and  some  of  the  other 
signers  had  been  Massachusetts  colonists,  and  Higginson  was 
put  in  the  front  rank  because  of  his  experience  as  governor  of 
the  factory  at  Fort  St.  George.  It  was  thus  a  joint  attack 
made  by  the  malcontents  of  both  provinces. 

The  grounds  on  which  Dudley's  removal  was  asked  were  that 
he  had  countenanced  illegal  trade  with  the  French  and  had 
furnished  the  enemy  with  ammunition;  and  that  when  the 
traders  were  suspected  the  governor  delayed  their  prosecution 
until  the  "  ammunition  he  had  furnished  the  enemy  was  used 
by  them  to  the  destruction  of  your  majesty's  good  subjects, 
and  that  colony  thereby  put  to  thirty  thousand  pounds 
charge."  It  was  also  asserted  that  he  had  prevailed  upon  the 

1  August  28,  1704,  ibid.  v.  131. 

1  Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  ii.  145. 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  183 

General  Court  to  change  the  accusation  of  Vetch  and  his 
accomplices  from  treason  to  misdemeanor,  and  that  he  had 
attempted  to  mitigate  the  punishment  and  fines  voted  by  the 
Court. 

Still  further  to  discredit  Dudley  and  to  stir  up  official  and 
popular  feeling  against  him,  there  appeared  in  London  a  few 
weeks  later  a  pamphlet  entitled  "A  Memorial  of  the  Present 
Deplorable  State  of  New-England." 1  This  was  a  bitter  attack 
upon  the  governor,  not  merely  accusing  him  of  the  serious 
charge  of  trading  with  the  enemy  and  manipulating  the 
trial  of  the  traders,  but  asserting,  under  the  guise  of  unsigned 
letters  and  affidavits,  that  the  governor  corresponded  with 
a  "Jesuit  or  Friar  of  great  influence"  and  boasted  that  he 
could  do  what  he  would  with  the  enemy.  Dudley  was  charged 
with  bribery,  corruption,  and  intimidation ;  and  the  favorable 
addresses  which  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  had  sent 
were  scoffed  at  as  being  obtained  from  office  holders  and 
friends.  From  internal  evidence  it  is  probable  that  Cotton 
Mather  was  the  author  of  this  pamphlet,  to  which  Partridge 
added  some  of  the  affidavits;  and  from  the  similarity  of  the 
accusations  in  this  and  the  Higginson  petition,  there  is  no 
ground  to  doubt  that  the  two  were  parts  of  a  carefully  planned 
attack  made  by  Dudley's  enemies  in  both  England  and  Amer- 
ica.2 The  attack  was  well  timed ;  for  from  February  to  Sep- 

1  The  original  copy  is  in  the  Public  Record  Office,  Board  of  Trade's  Papers, 
New  England,  13,  R.  13.     It  is  reprinted  in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  5th  Series,  vi.  31*.     Dudley,  in  his  reply,  "A  Modest  Enquiry  into 
the  Grounds  and  Occasions  of  a  Late  Pamphlet  intituled,  A  Memorial  of  the 
Present  Deplorable  State  of  New-England,"  asserts  that  the  original  pamphlet 
appeared  in  London,  July  10,  1707. 

2  In  March,  1 707,  Luttrell  (Brief  Historical  Relation  of  State  A  fairs,  vi.  1 5  2)  re- 
cords the  rumor  that  Hunter  was  to  be  sent  to  succeed  Dudley ;  and  May  10, 1 707, 
Ashurst  wrote  that  he  did  not  doubt  that  Dudley  would  in  a  little  time  be  suc- 
ceeded by  a  more  worthy  person  (Hutchinson,  History  of  Massachusetts,  ii.  147). 


184  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

tember,  1707,  the  Board  of  Trade  and  the  Privy  Council  had 
before  them  the  whole  matter  of  illegal  trade  and  the  particular 
cases  of  Vetch  and  Bourland.  Had  they  not  believed  the 
assertion  of  Dudley  that  the  unusual  action  of  the  General 
Court  was  due  to  popular  excitement,  they  might  have  be- 
lieved that  it  was,  as  his  enemies  declared,  a  device  to  divert 
suspicion  from  himself. 

That  rumor  and  suspicion  had  not  spared  the  governor  is 
seen  from  the  action  of  the  General  Court  in  Massachusetts. 
On  July  9,  1706,  while  the  trial  was  still  in  progress,  the  House 
voted  that  it  was  "utterly  false  &  without  the  Colour  of 
Truth,"  that  the  first  question  asked  of  the  prisoners  was 
whether  the  governor  was  concerned  in  the  trade.  The 
House  also  thanked  Dudley  for  using  his  influence  to  prevent 
such  a  trade  not  only  in  the  present  instance,  but  at  all  tunes.1 
There  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  governor  made  any  attempt 
to  procure  the  passage  of  this  vote;  nor  did  his  most  bitter 
enemy,  Cotton  Mather,  in  his  attack  the  following  year,  accuse 
him  of  such  an  attempt.  Therefore  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  in 
July,  1706,  there  was  no  evidence  that  Dudley  was  engaged  in 
such  trade  or  that  the  House  believed  him  to  be.  Moreover, 
the  letters  of  Winthrop  to  Fitz-John  Winthrop,  in  which  the 
account  of  the  arrest  is  given  and  the  rage  and  rumors  of  the 
people  are  described,  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  complic- 
ity on  the  part  of  the  governor ; 2  and  Colonel  Quarry,  reporting 
to  the  Board  of  Trade  six  months  later,  accuses  some  "top- 
ping men  of  that  Government,"  but  not  the  governor.3  That 
Vetch  and  his  associates  were  concerned  in  the  trade  is  cer- 
tain, and  that  Winthrop  sympathized  with  them  he  himself 

1  July  9,  1706,  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  218. 

*  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  333-336. 

*  New  York  Colonial  Documents,  v.  30  et  seq. 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  185 

says.1  Moreover,  Livingstone,  a  connection  of  both  Winthrop 
and  Vetch,  was  reported  on  a  similar  voyage  and  warned  not 
to  come  to  Boston.2  These  men  were  sufficiently  prominent 
to  account  for  the  "topping  men"  hi  Quarry's  report.  Had 
the  governor  himself  been  engaged  in  the  trade,  there  would 
have  been  some  evidence  of  the  fact  either  in  the  accusations 
of  his  enemies  or  in  the  confidential  letters  of  his  friends. 

Copies  of  the  Higginson  petition  and  the  Mather  pamphlet 
reached  Boston  on  November  i,  lyoy.3  Dudley  was  furiously 
angry  and  demanded  a  vote  from  the  General  Court  clearing 
him  of  all  suspicions.  He  first  read  the  petition  before  the 
Council  and  demanded  that  it  be  voted  a  scandalous  and 
wicked  accusation.  Sewall  prayed  that  it  might  be  laid  over 
a  few  days,  but  the  vote  was  rushed  through  and  sent  to  the 
House.4  Here  occurred  a  delay.  The  matter  had  now  become 
a  party  conflict ;  for,  on  October  28,  Leverett,  the  governor's 
candidate,  had  been  chosen  president  of  Harvard  College, 
thus  ending  the  control  of  the  Mathers  over  that  institu- 

1  Winthrop  to  Fitz-John  Winthrop,  June,  1706,  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  iii.  333-336. 

2  Winthrop  to  Fitz-John  Winthrop,  June  24,  1706,  ibid.  v.  142. 

3  Sewall's  Diary,  November  i,  1707:    "After  coming  from  Council  I  read 
the  Book  printed  against  the  Governour  in  London.     I  had  not  seen  it  before." 
—  ibid,  sth  Series,  vi.  197. 

4  "We  firmly  believe  and  are  of  the  opinion  [that]  The  Allegations  therein 
of  the  Governour's  Trading  or  allowing  a  Trade  wth  Her  Maty9  Enemies  the 
French  &  the  Indians  in  their  Interest  is  a  Scandalous  and  wicked  Accusation, 
The  contrary  Alwaies  being  apparent  to  Her  Matys  good  Subjects  under  his 
Governm',  more  especially  to  this  Board,   And  in  particular  to  the   General 
Officers  Attending  his  Exell07  as  Secretary  and  Commissary  General.     His 
Negotiations  and  Letters  with  the  Agents  or  Messengers  from  the  French 
Govern™  or  Commanders  of  the  Neighbourhood  being  from  time  to  time  laid 
before  the  Council  and  the  Assembly  when  Sitting;   And  are  very  Sensible  of 
his  indefatigable  Care  and  pains  in  a  Vigorous  &  successful  pursuit  of  the 
Enemy  and  Protection  of  her  Maty"  good  Subjects  —  Pass'd  Unanimously. "  — 
Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.),  xx.  109.     See  also  Records  of  the  General  Court 
(Ms.),  viii.  318. 


1 86  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

tion.1  The  Mather  interest,  which  had  been  growing  cold 
toward  the  governor  and  had  been  secretly  against  him,  now 
became  violently  and  openly  hostile ;  and  it  was  probably  this 
interest  that  delayed  the  vote  of  vindication.  The  vote  of  the 
Council  was  passed  November  i,  and  though  three  separate 
messages  were  sent  to  the  House,  nothing  was  done.2  On  the 
loth,  a  conference  took  place  in  which  the  governor  assured  the 
House  that  the  Council  was  unanimous  for  his  vindication,3  and 
on  the  2 1  st  the  desired  vote  was  passed.4  This  was  too  much  for 
Sewall.  He  had  held  a  conference  with  one  of  the  prisoners 
from  which  he  inferred  that  the  governor  was  at  least  aware  of 
some  illegal  business.  Sewall  was  a  friend  and  admirer  of 
Higginson,  and  he  resented  the  manner  in  which  the  vote  had 
been  rushed  through  the  Council.  He  therefore  publicly 
withdrew  his  vote;  "Not,"  he  wrote,  "that  I  Suspect  the 
Governor  designed  to  hurt  the  Province;  But  to  gratify 
Grateful  Merchants."5 

This  incident  became  the  central  theme  of  a  new  attack  by 
the  Mathers  in  a  second  memorial  on  the  "Deplorable  State  of 
New  England."6  Not  only  were  they  now  confident  that 
Dudley  was  privy  to  the  trade,  but  they  held  that  this  retrac- 
tion of  Sewall's  counterbalanced  the  "blanching  process," 
as  they  termed  the  votes  of  confidence  passed  by  the  Court, 

1  Sewall's  Diary,  October  28,  1707;  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii. 

325- 

2  November  4,  5,  6,  1707,  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  viii.  318-320. 

3  Ibid.  332. 

4  Ibid.  333.     The  original  vote  is  in  Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.),  xx.  109: 
"  Voted  That  we  firmly  believe  and  are  of  the  Opinion  The  Allegations  ...  of 
the  Governour's  Trading  or  Allowing  Vetch,  Borland  &  Lawson  to  Trade  with 
her  Majesties  Enemies,  the  French  &  Indians  in  their  Interest  is  a  scandalous 
and  wicked  accusation." 

5  Sewall's  Diary,  November  25,  1707;  Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.),  xx.  101. 
•London,  1708;   reprinted  in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections, 

5th  Series,  vi.  97*. 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  187 

-  votes  which  they  now  accused  Dudley  of  procuring  by  in- 
timidation and  corrupt  means.  If  this  last  charge  be  true, 
Dudley  must  have  been  a  consummate  politician ;  for  he  had 
obtained  vindication  not  only  from  the  Council,  which  was 
not  altogether  hostile  to  the  Mathers,  but  from  the  House, 
which  was  more  under  their  influence  and  in  which  sat  Elisha 
Cooke,  the  governor's  most  consistent  enemy.  It  is  altogether 
improbable  that  such  was  the  case ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  far 
easier  to  believe  that  the  House  passed  the  vote  of  vindication 
because  it  had  no  evidence  of  any  complicity  on  the  part  of  the 
governor.  All  that  the  enemies  of  Dudley  could  produce  as  the 
result  of  the  most  careful  search  was  an  invoice,  publicly 
signed  and  witnessed,  allowing  Rouse  to  carry  under  a  flag  of 
truce  some  nails,  knives,  and  provisions.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  the  privilege  was  abused,  and  that  this  innocent  permis- 
sion was  made  to  cover  commerce  of  a  more  doubtful  nature ; 
but  the  accusations  of  the  governor's  complicity  were  based 
on  doubtful  rumor  and  malicious  suspicion. 

Having  thus  gained  official  vindication  from  the  General 
Court,  Dudley  prepared  his  defence  for  use  in  England.  It  is 
dated  November  10,  1707,  and  is  entitled  "Colonel  Dudley's 
Most  humble  Defense  and  Apology  against  Most  Unjust  and 
false  Representations  in  an  Address  Offered  to  her  Majesty  at 
Windsor  on  the  Twenty-third  of  June  last  past."1  After 
reviewing  the  career  of  his  father  and  his  own  previous  ser- 
vice, he  defends  his  war  policy,  showing  that  "Whereas  in  all 
former  warrs  with  the  French  and  Indians,  her  Majtiei 
government  had  been  always  fain  to  purchase  their  Prisoners 
at  Five  Pounds  a  head  or  more,  the  srt  Dudley  has  forced  them 
to  Exchange  prisoners  without  the  least  Ransome."  He 
asserts  as  one  of  his  merits  that  he  has  obtained  information 

1  Public  Record  Office,  Treasury  Papers  (Ms.),  ciii.  61. 


i88  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

from  his  agents  at  Quebec  and  among  the  Indians,  and  thus 
has  been  able  to  forestall  some  of  the  Indian  raids.  As  for  his 
partnership  with  Vetch,  "the  Seizure,"  he  says,  "of  his  and 
his  Partners  Estates  and  Effects  and  Confiscating  them  to  her 
Majesty,  and  his  proceeding  against  them  to  fines  to  the  value 
of  Three  thousand  pounds;  and  Saving  those  Fines  to  her 
Majtles  Disposal  which  was  never  before  done  in  these  her 
Majties  Provinces  it  is  hoped  will  acquit  him  from  partnership 
with  them."  Additional  letters  of  defence  and  explanation 
were  sent  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  Chamberlayne  was  supplied 
with  material  for  his  vindication,  and  a  special  petition  was 
sent  from  the  Reverend  Solomon  Stoddard  and  other  ministers 
asking  for  Dudley's  continuance.1  Finally  there  appeared  in 
London  a  pamphlet  entitled  "A  Modest  Enquiry  into  the 
Grounds  and  Occasions  of  a  Late  Pamphlet,  intituled,  A 
Memorial  of  the  Present  Deplorable  State  of  New-England."2 
This  was  Dudley's  answer  to  the  first  Mather  pamphlet  and 
his  attempt  to  influence  public  opinion.  The  charges  of  the 
Mathers  are  taken  up  in  detail  and  either  ridiculed  or  answered 
one  by  one ;  and  the  pamphlet  closes  with  copies  of  the 
numerous  addresses  from  the  merchants  in  Boston,  the  minis- 
ters of  New  England,  and  the  officers  of  the  militia.  The 
whole  reply  is  more  temperate  in  tone  and  convincing  in  rea- 
soning than  the  attack  of  the  Mathers. 

The  Board  of  Trade  believed  Dudley's  defence ;  for  on  its 
copy  of  his  pamphlet  is  the  endorsement:  "May  depend  upon 
the  Protection  of  the  Board  while  he  acts  for  Her  Majestys 
Service."3  Chamberlayne  and  Blathwayt  probably  aided 

1  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  13,  Q.  50,  R.  64  and  66; 
Entry  Book,  41,  F.  84.     Treasury  Paper?  (Ms.),  ciii.  61,  63,  cv.  44. 

2  London,  1707;    reprinted  in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections, 
5th  Series,  vi.  65*. 

*  Board  of  Trade,  Papers,  New  England  (Ms.),  13,  R.  64. 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  189 

him ;  and  the  Privy  Council,  after  numerous  delays  and  post- 
ponements, heard  both  sides  by  counsel  and  dismissed  the 
charges  as  "frivolous."1 

Before  this  decision  was  rendered  in  England,  the  Mathers, 
smarting  under  the  sense  of  defeat,  addressed  two  violent 
letters  to  Dudley.  Increase  Mather  accused  him  of  murder- 
ing Leisler,  of  bribery,  of  planning  to  ruin  the  colony,  of  false- 
ness to  the  college,  and,  as  a  climax,  declared,  "It  was  a  letter 
of  my  sons  which  you  read  to  the  King  that  inclined  him  to 
give  you  a  commission  &  that  the  King  thought  that  the  letter 
had  been  mine."  Cotton  Mather,  who  had  in  a  previous  letter 
used  figurative  language  referring  to  Dudley  as  of  the  tribe  of 
Naphtali,  "a  mode  of  speaking  used  among  gentleman  of 
polite  education,"  now  descends  to  plain  language.  He  admits 
that  he  supported  Dudley  before  King  William,  but  he  thought 
that  he  had  reformed.  He  accuses  him  of  covetousness  and 
bribery,  of  improper  use  of  commissions,  of  intimidation  of  the 
Council  and  the  House,  and  of  intentionally  sparing  Port 
Royal  at  the  time  of  the  Church  expedition  in  order  to  enjoy 
the  illegal  trade.  "The  whole  affair  of  those  grateful  mer- 
chants," he  declares,  "will  by  degrees  be  brought  to  light." 
Dudley's  reply  was  in  the  form  of  a  joint  letter  which  must  have 
cut  the  Mathers  to  the  quick.  Little  attempt  was  made  to 
answer  charges  so  wild  and  vague ;  but  the  governor  gravely 
reproved  both  father  and  son,  expressed  astonishment  that 
they  should  so  forget  their  station,  and  hoped  that  soon  they 
would  come  to  their  senses.  Why  had  they  remained  silent 
so  long  ?  If  he  was  a  murderer  now  because  of  Leisler's  execu- 
tion, he  was  one  at  the  time  they  were  supporting  him  and 
urging  his  appointment.  "Every  one,"  he  asserts,  "can  see 

1  Register  of  the  Privy  Council  (Ms.),  Anne,  iii.  382,  389,  408,  477,  510;  Lut- 
trell,  Brief  Historical  Relation  of  State  Affairs,  iv.  193,  260. 


TEE  PUBLIC   LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

through  the  pretense  &  is  able  to  account  for  the  spring  of 
these  letters,  and  how  they  would  have  been  prevented  with- 
out easing  any  grievance  you  complain  of."  * 

The  final  retort  of  the  Mathers  was  contained  in  a  pamphlet 
printed  in  London  in  1708,  after  the  Privy  Council  had  dis- 
missed the  charges  against  Dudley.2  The  same  accusations 
are  brought  forward  again,  the  "blanching  process"  by  which 
Dudley  had  gained  the  vindication  of  the  Court  is  exposed, 
and  Sewall's  withdrawal  of  his  vote  is  given  in  full.  The 
favorable  addresses  for  the  governor  are  scoffed  at  as  coming 
from  those  dependent  upon  Dudley,  and  he  is  charged  with 
overawing  the  Court.  Besides  being  sharp  and  bitter  in  tone, 
the  charges  are  so  extreme  and  the  language  so  violent  that 
the  pamphlet  could  have  had  little  effect  save  on  those  who 
were  already  Dudley's  enemies.  The  very  violence  of  the 
attack  discounted  the  truth  of  the  charges.  Had  the  Mathers 
been  content  to  charge  Dudley  with  connivance  at  illegal 
trade,  even  though  no  legal  proof  had  been  brought  against 
him  and  though  the  specific  accusations  had  already  been 
heard  and  dismissed,  they  might  have  strengthened  suspicions 
concerning  his  honesty ;  but  their  wild  accusations  were  sup- 
ported by  no  satisfactory  proof,  and  their  charges  were  not 
believed.  Careful  study  confirms  the  belief  that  these  charges 

1  The  correspondence  between  the  Mathers  and  Dudley  is  to  be  found   in 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  ist  Series,  iii.  126  el  seq.;   Mar- 
vin's Life  and  Times  of  Cotton  Matlter,  350-353,  and  Wendell's  Cotton  Mather, 
ch.  x,  both  treat  this  episode.     In  this  same  year  Dudley  wrote  to  the  Bishop 
of  London,  "I  have  served  the  Queen  faithfully  here  and  everybody  that  is 
disposed  to  peace  and  quietness  say  so  publickly,  but  I  cannot  be  at  peace 
with  Mr.  Mather  and  his  son,  they  pursue  me  Everywhere,  I  must  bear  it  as 
well  as  I  can. "  —  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  Letters  (Ms.),  iv.  38. 

2  "The  Deplorable  State  of  New-England,  by  Reason  of   a  Covetous  and 
Treacherous  Governour  .  .  ."  London,  1708;  reprinted  in  Massachusetts  His- 
torical Society,  Collections,  5th  Series,  vi.  97*. 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  191 

were  "frivolous,"  the  last  resort  of  a  disappointed  and  de- 
feated party. 

Dudley  was  successful ;  but  Ashurst,  though  admitting  his 
defeat,  did  not  relax  his  enmity.  His  next  effort  was  to  dis- 
place Dudley  by  Sir  Charles  Hobby,  a  man  of  notoriously 
loose  morals,  whose  faults  Ashurst  well  knew;  "but,"  he 
wrote,  "the  earth  must  helpe  the  woman."1  Sir  Charles 
came  over  to  Boston  in  1708 ;  but  before  the  year  was  out  he 
was  won  over  to  Dudley's  party,2  and  Dudley  was  still  in 
power,  —  perhaps,  as  Ashurst  hints,  because  of  the  influence 
of  the  great  Whig  lords.3 

Ashurst's  adherents  in  America  may  have  doubted  his 
ability,  for  a  movement  was  started  to  appoint  a  special  agent 
for  Massachusetts.  The  choice  of  the  House  fell  upon  Sir 
William  Ashurst,4  the  brother  of  Sir  Henry.  No  selection 
save  that  of  Sir  Henry  himself  could  have  been  so  displeasing 
to  Dudley,  who  threatened  to  refuse  to  sign  the  commission 
at  one  session  of  the  Council,  and  raged  and  stormed  when 
the  bill  was  finally  sent  up.  Nevertheless,  he  was  forced  to 
sign  the  bill  and  the  instructions.5  At  the  same  time  he 
sent  a  letter  to  Sir  William,  trying  to  make  his  peace  with 
him  and  win  him  to  his  side.  Although  Sir  William  refused 
the  appointment,  Dudley  gained  his  end  and  made  him  his 


1  Ashurst  to  Winthrop,  August  24,   1708,   Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  6th  Series,  v.  173. 

2  Ashurst  to  Increase   Mather,  October   10,  1709:    "I  heare   Sr  Ch 

H is  come  into  his  interest"  (ibid.  199). 

3  Ashurst  to  Mather,  February  17,  1709/1710:    "But  money  &  something 
else  kept  him  in,  which  I  dare  not  write  you.    What  if  ye  Whig  Lords  doe  it?" 
—  ibid.  215. 

4  Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.),  xx.  127;  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.), 
ix.  7. 

5  Sewall's  Diary,  February  7,  1709/10;  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.), 
ix.  7. 


IQ2  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

friend ; l  for  at  a  later  crisis  he  was  supported  with  all  the  in- 
fluence and  interest  that  Sir  William  Ashurst  could  muster. 
Since  Ashurst  had  refused  the  appointment,  a  new  choice  had  to 
be  made ;  and  on  the  petition  of  the  merchants  in  London  the 
House  elected  Jeremiah  Dummer,  a  native  of  Massachusetts.2 
Though  opposing  this  appointment  and  wishing  one  of  his 
friends,  Henry  Newman,  to  have  the  post,3  Dudley  took  care 
to  win  Dummer  over  to  his  side.  In  time  he  was  successful, 
and  Dummer,  together  with  Sir  William  Ashurst,  continued 
to  support  him  as  long  as  he  remained  in  power. 

Though  Sir  Henry  Ashurst  was  agent  for  Connecticut,  he 
took  great  interest  in  Massachusetts  and  believed  it  his  mis- 
sion to  oppose  Dudley;  hence  the  appointment  of  a  special 
agent  for  Massachusetts  seemed  a  slur  upon  his  abilities.  The 
Mathers,  moreover,  reproached  him  with  failure  to  carry  out 
his  plans  in  removing  Dudley ; 4  and  thus  put  upon  the  defen- 
sive, he  organized  one  final  attack.  He  had  for  his  allies  the 
Duke  of  Devonshire,  Lord  Sunderland,  and  Godolphin,5 
a  combination  which  seemed  invincible.  Dudley,  however, 
had  perfected  his  intrigues  with  Sir  Charles  Hobby,  who, 
instead  of  opposing  him,  favored  his  continuance ;  so  that  the 

1  Dudley  to  Sir  William  Ashurst,  November  15,  1710,  Correspondence  between 
the  Governors  and  Treasurers  of  the  New  England  Company  in  London  and  the 
Commissioners  of  the  United  Colonies  in  America  (ed.  J.  W.  Ford,  London,  1897), 
92. 

2  The  petition  is  in  Massachusetts  Archives  (Ms.),  xx.  114;    the  vote  of  the 
Court,  November  TO,  1710,  is  in  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  ix.  87. 

3  By  direction  of  the  governor  the  secretary  informed  the  House  that  the 
governor  recommended  Henry  Newman,  Esq.,  "a  gentleman  of  the  Country 
now  Resident  in  London  and  well  known  at  Court  to  the  Ministry"  (Records 
of  the  General  Court,  ix.  83,  November  9,  1710). 

4  Ashurst  to  Increase  Mather,  May  10,  1710,  Massachusetts  Historical  So- 
ciety, Collections,  6th  Series,  v.  216. 

5  In  the  same  letter  Ashurst  writes :"...!  answer,  D had  been  out  if 

the  Duke  of  Devonshire  had  liv'd.     My  Ld  Sund &  Ld  Treas promised 

me  it ;  and  that  I  should  name  whom  I  pleased  to  succeed." 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  193 

witnesses  against  him  found  themselves  confused  and  dis- 
credited, and,  confronted  by  such  a  mass  of  favorable  testi- 
mony, Sir  Henry  Ashurst  concluded  that  "every  body  thinkes 
him  an  excellent  Govr  save  S.  H.  A."1  This  was  the  last 
attempt  made  by  Ashurst  to  remove  Dudley,  and  the  last  one 
made  during  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne.  Throughout  her 
reign,  Dudley  had  kept  his  post  by  the  means  of  his  friends  at 
court.  With  the  accession  of  George  I,  however,  new  poli- 
ticians gained  the  ascendency,  with  whom  Dudley  did  not 
have  the  same  influence,  and  new  and  more  formidable  parties 
were  formed  in  Massachusetts.  To  these  new  conditions 
Dudley  had  to  give  way. 

The  next  attempt  to  supersede  Dudley,  resulting  from  these 
new  conditions,  had  its  origin  in  Massachusetts.  The  news  of 
the  death  of  Queen  Anne  was  slow  in  reaching  Boston.  Not 
only  was  the  official  notice  delayed  until  September  iy,2  but 
the  proclamations  and  orders  of  the  Board  of  Trade  were  still 
longer  on  the  way,  owing  to  the  wreck  of  the  sloop  Hazard, 
which  brought  them.3  In  the  interim,  the  Council  saw  its 
opportunity  to  remove  Dudley  and  to  manage  affairs  itself. 

It  was  a  principle  of  English  law  that  all  commissions  that 
were  issued  to  run  during  " pleasure"  were  rendered  void  by 
the  death  of  the  sovereign  granting  them,  unless  continued  by 
a  proclamation  of  the  successor.  In  1708  an  act  was  passed 
amending  this  principle,  so  that  commissions  were  to  run  for 
six  months  after  the  demise  of  the  sovereign  unless  cancelled 
by  the  successor.  The  charter  of  Massachusetts  directed 
that  in  case  of  the  absence  or  the  death  of  the  governor  the 
administration  should  devolve  upon  the  lieutenant-governor, 
or,  in  case  of  his  incapacity,  upon  the  eldest  councillor.  This 

1  Ibid.  219.  2  Council  Records  (Ms.),  vi.  251. 

1  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Proceedings,  26!  Series,  xv.  338. 


194  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

rule  was  repeated  in  Dudley's  instructions,  and  by  his  direc- 
tions had  been  entered  on  the  books  of  the  Council,  and  a 
second  time  entered  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1708.* 
On  these  directions  the  Council  rested  its  attempt  to  oust 
Dudley  from  his  position. 

The  General  Court  was  in  session  when  the  news  of  the 
death  of  the  queen  reached  Boston,  and  the  king  was  pro- 
claimed with  considerable  pomp.2  The  governor's  friends, 
thinking  this  an  auspicious  time,  attempted  to  get  an 
address  passed  praying  for  his  continuance;  but  the  feeling 
against  him  because  of  his  opposition  to  the  Land  Bank  party 
was  too  strong,  and  the  effort  failed;3  and  on  October  2,  the 
Court  was  prorogued  until  the  2oth.  On  coming  together 
after  the  prorogation  it  passed  a  necessary  act  for  the  remov- 
ing of  doubts  as  to  the  legality  of  the  commissions,  and  also 
an  act  putting  an  end  to  the  hopes  of  the  Land  Bank  party.4 
The  Court,  then,  with  the  advice  of  the  Council,  dissolved.5 
As  yet  no  official  proclamation  from  the  king  had  been  re- 
ceived in  Boston.  On  the  last  day  of  December,  Addington 
and  Sewall  had  a  conference  during  which  Addington  showed 
Sewall  the  letter  of  the  queen  concerning  the  devolution  of 
the  government.6  It  is  probable  that  other  conferences  were 
held  and  that  plans  were  laid  to  supersede  the  governor  on 
February  i,  when  the  six  months  from  the  death  of  the  queen 
should  have  expired.  Sewall  was  slow  to  become  convinced ; 
for  on  January  12,  when  the  measures  were  discussed  in  the 
Council,  he  moved  for  a  postponement.7  On  January  26, 
the  governor  tried  to  force  an  issue  by  proposing  that  his 
commission  should  run  until  the  king's  pleasure  should  be 

1  Council  Records  (Ms.),  Hi-  334,  iv.  596.  2  Ibid.  vi.  256. 

3  Records  of  the  General  Court  (Ms.),  ix.  414.  *  Ibid.  5  Ibid.  437. 

6  Sewall's  Diary,  December  31,  1714.  ''Ibid.  January  12,  1714/1715. 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  195 

known.1  This  motion  was  voted  down,  Sewall  voting  with  the 
rest  because  he  perceived  that  the  order  was  so  worded  as  to 
tie  the  hands  of  the  Council.2  Matters  were  now  at  a  dead- 
lock, and  a  suspension  of  hostilities  occurred  until  the  five 
days  left  in  January  should  expire. 

On  February  i  the  Council  sent  a  committee  to  the  governor 
to  inform  him  that,  as  the  six  months  allowed  by  the  act  of 
Parliament  had  expired,  it  was  the  opinion  of  the  Council  that 
the  government  devolved  upon  itself  unless  he  had  received 
orders  from  England.3  Dudley  replied  that  he  had  received 
no  orders.  Sewall  then  fell  back  on  the  charter  and  the 
instructions  from  the  queen  which  directed  the  devolution  of 
the  government  in  case  of  the  absence  or  the  death  of  the 
governor.  Dudley  replied  that  he  was  neither  dead  nor  absent, 
and  "expressed  an  aversion  to  enter  into  discourse."  The 
committee  then  returned  and  reported.  Two  days  later, 
February  3,  the  Council  voted  "that  the  government  should 
go  to  the  oldest  Councillor"  and  thus  deposed  the  governor.4 

Apparently  the  change  was  acquiesced  in  quietly  by  the 
people.  The  clergy  were  on  the  side  of  the  Council,  and  prayed, 
not  for  the  governor  and  lieutenant-governor,  but  for  those 
who  had  the  administration.5  The  people  in  the  towns  were 
unusually  angered  against  Dudley,  and  the  leading  men  were 
in  the  Council  and  directed  the  change.  Yet  in  spite  of  the 
lack  of  opposition  and  of  the  high  character  of  the  men  com- 
posing the  Council,  its  rule  was  inefficient.  On  February  4, 
the  councillors  issued  a  proclamation  stating  what  they  had 
done,  and  drew  up  an  oath,  which  was  taken  by  all.6  On  the 

1  Ibid.  January  26,  1714/1715 ;  also  Council  Records  (Ms.),  vi.  304-305. 

2  Sewall's  Diary,  February  i,  1714/1715. 

3  Ibid.  6  Sewall's  Diary,  February  3. 

4  Council  Records  (Ms.),  vi.  308-309.  6  Council  Records  (Ms.),  vi.  312. 


196  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

9th,  they  started  a  letter  to  the  Board  of  Trade,  but  quibbled 
over  its  contents  so  that  it  was  not  sent  until  March  i  -1  Again 
they  could  not  agree  on  the  terms  of  a  proclamation  for  a  fast, 
and  it  was  finally  read  only  by  SewalTs  son.  On  February  9, 
they  issued  new  commissions  to  the  justices  of  peace  and  the 
officers.  The  governor's  son,  William  Dudley,  refused  to 
receive  his,  saying  that  he  already  had  one  with  a  seal,  and 
for  this  bit  of  pleasantry  he  was  superseded.2  In  short,  every 
question  was  argued  and  debated  so  much,  and  so  little  was 
done  that  the  people  were  not  ah1  sorry  when  the  rule  of  the 
Council  came  to  an  end. 

Meantime  Dudley  and  his  friends  were  not  idle.  They 
issued  an  appeal  hi  a  pamphlet  entitled  "The  Case  of  His 
Excellency  the  Governour  and  Council  of  the  Province  of  the 
Massachusetts-Bay  hi  New-England,  truly  stated,"3  which 
contained  the  best  exposition  of  the  position  of  both  the  gov- 
ernor and  the  Council.  The  governor  held  that,  since  the  act 
of  Parliament  whereby  the  commissions  were  extended  for  six 
months  contained  no  negative  clause,  as  did  the  act  extending 
the  session  of  Parliament,  his  commission  should  run  until  it 
was  superseded.  Granting  this  interpretation  of  Dudley's,  the 
Council  had  no  ground  on  which  to  stand ;  but  it  held  to  the 
literal  interpretation  of  the  act,  and  maintained  that,  since 
six  months  had  expired,  his  commission  was  thereby  void. 
What  would  have  been  the  outcome  of  these  diametrically 
opposed  views,  it  is  impossible  to  say ;  but  it  is  not  probable 
that  the  governor  would  have  been  able  to  raise  a  party  to 

1  Council  Records  (Ms.),  February  9,  1714/1715;  see  also  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society,  Proceedings,  2d  Series,  xv.  348. 

1  Sewall's  Diary,  February  18,  1714/1715;  Council  Records  (Ms.),  vi.  321. 

3  Sewall  first  saw  this  pamphlet  March  16,  1714/1715  (see  his  diary  of  that 
date).  It  is  reprinted  by  Ford  in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Proceed- 
ings, ad  Series,  xv.  356. 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  197 

resist  the  Council.  This  fact  he  apparently  recognized  in  the 
first  instance ;  for,  though  protesting,  he  put  no  obstacles  in 
the  Council's  way.  The  whole  affair,  however,  was  settled 
on  March  19  by  the  safe  receipt  of  a  duplicate  of  the  king's 
proclamation  of  November  2,  1714.  By  this  proclamation 
all  officers  were  to  continue  in  the  exercise  of  their  duties  until 
the  king's  pleasure  was  known;  and  therefore  Dudley  was 
restored  to  his  position.  He  and  his  family  enjoyed  their 
triumph.  March  29,  Sunday,  was  the  day  on  which  the  Coun- 
cil's proclamation  for  a  fast  was  to  be  read ;  but  the  ministers 
had  been  informed,  and  the  Council  was  denied  the  pleasure 
of  hearing  its  official  handiwork  published  from  the  pulpit. 
On  the  same  evening  Paul  Dudley  and  William  Dummer 
notified  each  member  of  the  Council  that  the  governor  was 
coming  to  town  on  the  following  day,  and  that  a  Council 
meeting  was  called  to  hear  the  proclamation  of  the  king. 
On  the  next  day  the  governor,  accompanied  by  two  troops 
of  horse  and  by  his  guards,  came  to  Boston  and  resumed 
the  power.1  Volleys  were  fired  and  cheers  given,2  and  the 
News  Letter  hints  that  the  people  were  only  too  glad  to  wel- 
come him  back. 

Thus  ended  one  of  the  most  curious  constitutional  complica- 
tions in  Dudley's  administration.  Without  doubt  he  was 
right  in  anticipating  the  intention  of  the  English  government, 
which  was  clearly  shown  by  the  date  of  the  delayed  proclama- 
tion ;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  he  had  a  very  weak  case  in 
law.3  He  himself  seems  to  have  recognized  this  from  the  first, 

1  SewalFs  Diary,  March  20,  1714/1715. 

2  Council  Records  (Ms.),  vi.  334;    Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Pro- 
ceedings, 2d  Series,  xv.  353. 

3  Nevertheless,  Sir  Edward  Northey,  attorney-general,  was  of  the  opinion 
that  "  twas  a  jest  to  think  the  Council  right  to  take  on  them  the  Governm'. " 
—  Sewall's  Diary,  January  2,  1719/1720. 


198  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

for  he  made  very  little  opposition  or  argument  to  the  assump- 
tion of  the  power  by  the  Council.  The  long  interval  of  six 
weeks  before  his  defence  appeared  is  another  indication  of  his 
doubt,  and  the  whole  "Case"  is  a  rather  labored  though  an 
able  argument.  The  incident  is  interesting,  moreover,  as 
showing  the  attitude  of  the  Council.  Dudley  had  greater 
control  over  this  body  than  over  the  House;  some  of  the 
councillors  were  connected  with  him  by  marriage,  most  of 
them  were  his  friends,  and  in  the  last  session  of  the  Court 
they  had  all  supported  him  on  the  banking  question.  Their 
action,  however,  shows  their  extreme  jealousy  of  the  power 
granted  to  any  governor,  and  their  eagerness  to  take  the  power 
into  their  own  hands.  It  is  but  another  example  of  the  inde- 
pendent spirit  of  Massachusetts  that  had  been  shown  in  a 
similar  manner  on  the  imprisonment  of  Andros  and  at  the 
death  of  Bellomont. 

Although  Dudley  was  restored  to  power  by  the  proclama- 
tion of  the  king,  he  enjoyed  his  triumph  but  a  short  time.  His 
action  in  regard  to  the  Bank  party  had  offended  a  powerful 
interest,  which  sought  in  England  to  have  him  displaced  and  a 
more  pliant  governor  appointed.  His  old  friends  and  sup- 
porters were  no  longer  in  power,  but  had  been  replaced  by 
another  set  of  politicians,  with  whom  he  was  unacquainted 
and  who  had  no  knowledge  of  him.  Moreover,  they  had  to 
provide  for  favorites  of  their  own,  whose  claims  were  greater 
than  any  that  Dudley  could  urge.  To  these  new  leaders 
the  Land  Bank  party  applied,  and  to  Stanhope  in  particular. 
Its  labors,  however,  met  with  opposition  from  both  Dummer 
and  Sir  William  Ashurst,  both  of  whom  used  all  their  influ- 
ence to  keep  Dudley  in  power  and  to  check  the  plans  of 
the  Land  Bank  party.  Their  efforts  were  fruitless;  for  a 
new  commission  was  issued  to  one  of  Stanhope's  aides, 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  199 

Colonel  Burgess,  and  Dudley's  long  administration  came  to 
an  end. 

Although  Dudley  was  removed  from  office,  his  career  was 
not  ended.  He  and  his  family  had  played  too  important  a 
part  in  the  political  life  of  the  colony  to  allow  him  at  once  to 
sink  into  obscurity ;  and  his  friends  continued  to  employ  his 
influence,  while  his  enemies  could  not  ignore  the  power  of  his 
supporters.  In  the  interval  between  the  publication  of  Bur- 
gess's commission  and  the  arrival  of  Governor  Shute,  Lieu- 
tenant-Governor  Tailer  was  acting  governor.  Although 
Tailer  was  a  connection  of  Dudley's  by  marriage,  there  is  no 
evidence  that  the  two  acted  in  harmony.  On  the  contrary, 
the  old  governor  did  all  he  could  to  tie  the  hands  of  his  succes- 
sor, for  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  some  of  the  Council,  he 
pushed  through  an  order  proroguing  the  General  Court.1 
This,  however,  did  not  prevent  Tailer's  activity  in  Council 
meetings,  where,  much  to  the  anger  of  some  of  the  old  gov- 
ernor's feminine  admirers,  he  occupied  the  chair  from  which 
Dudley  had  so  long  enforced  his  will.2 

Plans  were  set  in  motion  to  reward  Dudley  by  honoring 
his  family.  His  son  Paul  was  suggested  as  a  possible  candi- 
date for  lieutenant-governor,3  and  for  Sewall's  position  as  one 
of  the  judges ; 4  but  to  no  purpose.  Dudley,  however,  occupied 
the  place  of  an  unofficial  adviser  to  the  Shute  administration 
during  the  first  days  of  its  existence.  Thus,  Shute  refused 
the  invitation  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  lodge  with 
Colonel  Tailer,  preferring  to  accept  an  invitation  from  Paul 
Dudley ;  and  Joseph  Dudley  met,  welcomed,  and  talked  with 


1  Sewall's  Diary,  October  18,  1715. 

2  Ibid.  January  5,  1715/1716. 

3  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  4th  Series,  ii.  308. 

4  Sewall's  Diary,  February  8,  1617/1618. 


200  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

the  new  governor  before  the  ministers  officially  welcomed 
him  at  the  town-house.  These  facts  led  some  to  fear  that  Shute 
would  be  a  purely  partisan  governor,  which  "Deus  avertat 
Omnem,"  piously  wrote  Sewall.1  So,  too,  Dummer  wished 
to  assure  "Roxbury"  that  he  would  be  well  represented  to 
the  ministry,  and  sought  Dudley's  good  wishes,  not  his  open 
aid,  for  that  might  injure  Dummer's  chances  in  certain  quar- 
ters; rather  would  he  have  Dudley  publicly  oppose  him, 
while  evidently  desiring  the  support  of  the  members  of  the 
old  governor's  party.2 

It  is  obvious  that  Dudley  occupied  a  difficult  position,  and 
that  in  the  unstable  condition  of  parties  caused  by  the  activities 
of  the  Land  Bank  party  he  was  alike  sought  and  feared.  He 
realized  his  position;  for  he  wrote,  "I  think  I  have  liv'd  long 
enough,"3  and  in  the  remaining  four  years  of  his  life  he  took 
little  public  part  in  the  political  affairs  of  the  colony.  Though 
he  lived  at  his  home  in  Roxbury,  he  was  a  frequent  and 
honored  guest  at  private  and  public  functions  in  Boston. 
He  was  one  of  the  wealthy  men  of  the  colony,  the  head  of  a 
family  which  was  as  important  as  any  in  Massachusetts, 
and  by  the  marriages  of  his  children  was  connected  with 
the  Winthrops,  Sewalls,  Dummers,  and  other  prominent 
families.  His  son  was  attorney-general  of  the  colony,  his 
son-in-law,  William  Dummer,  was  lieutenant-governor,  and 
it  is  probable  that  in  unofficial  ways  Dudley's  influence  had 
to  be  reckoned  with,  although  there  is  no  evidence  of  any 
public  activity. 

He  died  April  2,  1720,  at  the  age  of  seventy-three,  and  was 
buried  at  Roxbury  with  considerable  pomp,  troops  of  horse 

1  Sewall's  Diary,  October  5,  1716. 

*  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  5th  Series,  vii.  107. 

s  Ibid.  4th  Series,  ii.  308. 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  201 

from  Boston  and  Roxbury  acting  as  military  escorts.  On 
April  14,  Dr.  Colman  preached  a  funeral  sermon  containing 
many  sly  comparisons  with  the  patriarch  Joseph,  not  wholly 
to  the  advantage  of  the  late  governor;  and  in  the  following 
number  of  the  Boston  News  Letter  there  was  an  extravagant 
eulogy.  By  Dudley's  will  it  is  seen  that,  although  a  wealthy 
man,  he  made  only  one  public  bequest,  but  left  the  bulk  of  his 
property  to  his  family,  and  chiefly  to  his  eldest  son,  believing, 
as  he  once  wrote,  that  it  was  the  duty  of  an  English  gentleman 
to  support  his  family. 

NOTE 

The  last  Will  &  Testament  of  Joseph  Dudley  of  Roxbury  Esqe 

~  revoking  all  other  Wills,  &  Dispositions  of  my  Estate  ~  I  be- 
queath my  Soul  into  the  Hands  of  Almighty  Code,  thro  Jesus 
Christ  my  Lorde,  in  whom  I  trust  for  Eternal  Life,  &  my  Body 
to  be  decently  buried  wth  my  Father,  at  the  Discretion  of  my 
Executors  My  temporal  Estate,  I  dispose  in  Manner  following  ~ 
I  give  to  Rebeckah  my  dear  Wife,  my  Servants,  Household  Goods, 
Plate,  and  Two  hundrede  Pounds  in  Money,  to  be  at  her  own 
Disposale  in  her  Life  Time,  or  at  her  Death  amongst  her  Children 
~And  if  she  dye  without  any  such  Disposal  then  what  is  left 
thereof,  to  be  equally  divided  amongst  the  Children  ~  I  also  give 
my  Dear  Wife,  my  Mansion  House,  (or  what  part  of  it  she  pleases 
to  use)  &  Gardens  for  her  Life,  &  one  hundred  Pounds  $  Annum 
to  paid  Quarterly,  in  equal  Portions,  for  her  Support,  during  her 
Life,  to  be  paid  by  Paul  Dudley,  my  Eldest  Son,  out  of  ye  Issues, 
&  Rents  of  my  Estate,  herein  given  him.  ~  I  give  to  my  Son  William 
Dudley,  my  New  Farm  in  ye  Woods,  in  Roxbury  conta8  One  hun- 
dred &  Fifty  Acres  more,  or  less,  with  ye  Woodland  there  pur- 
chased of  Devotion  Crafts,  &  others,  from  whence  he  shall  annually 
supply  &  bring  home  to  his  mother,  her  Firewood,  during  her  Life 
~  I  also  give  him  my  Farm  of  One  Thousand  Acres  at  Manchaag, 


202  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH   DUDLEY 

&  Three  hundred  Pounds  toward  building  him  an  House  ~  I  have 
already  by  ye  Favour  of  God,  disposed  in  Marriage  my  four 
Daughters,  Sewall,  Winthrop,  Dummer,  &  Wainwright,  &  paid  them 
what  I  intendede  ~  I  further  give  each  of  them,  one  Thousand 
Acres  of  Land  to  be  equally  taken  out  of  my  six  Thousand  Acres, 
in  the  Town  of  Oxforde,  &  to  my  Nephew  Daniel  Allin,  &  my 
Niece  Ann  Hilton,  Five  hundred  Acres  out  of  ye  same  Dividende, 
to  be  equally  dividede  between  them,  All  these  Lands  to  descend 
to  ye  Children  Severally,  &  the  Heirs  of  their  Bodies  ~  I  further 
give  to  my  four  Daughters  One  hundred  Pounds  each,  to  be  laid 
out  in  what  they  please,  in  Remembrance  of  their  Mother,  &  to 
my  Niece  Ann  Hilton,  Forty  Pounds,  to  be  paid,  at  age  or  Mar- 
riage ~  Further  if  by  ye  Providence  of  God  my  Daughter  Wain- 
wright fall  a  Widow,  or  her  Husbande  uncapable  of  Business,  I 
give  her  Twenty  Pounds  ^  Annum  to  be  paid  her,  in  equal  Por- 
tions by  her  two  Brothers,  during  her  Widowhoode,  or  his  In- 
capacity for  Business.  To  my  Eldest  Son  Paul  Dudley  I  give 
the  Inheritance  of  all  my  Houses,  &  Lands,  in  Roxbury,  Oxforde, 
Woodstock,  Newtown,  Brookline,  Merrimack,  or  elsewhere,  all 
my  Stock,  Debts,  Money,  &  all  ye  Estate  belonging  to  me  what- 
soever, except  as  above,  he  paying  all  my  just  Debts,  Legacys,  & 
Funerale  Charges,  &  his  Mothers  Annuity  as  above  sett  down.~ 
And  my  Will  is  that  my  Lands  descende  to  my  Heirs  after  the 
manner  of  Englande  forever  to  the  Male  Heirs  first,  &  after  to  ye 
Females.  If  either  of  my  Sons  dye  without  Male  Issue,  his  Brother 
&  his  Male  Issue  shall  inherit  ye  Lands  herein  bequeathed.  I  give 
to  the  free  School  in  Roxbury,  Fifty  Pounds,  to  be  put  out  to  use, 
or  to  purchase  Land  to  assist  ye  Support  of  a  Latin  Master  by  ye 

[ ]  of  ye  S'd  Schoole  from  Time  to  Tune.  This  &  other  Legacys 

in  this  Will  to  be  paid  in  that  w  passeth  for  Money,  in  this 
Province. 

I  ordain  my  well  belovede  Wife,  Paul  Dudley,  &  William  Dudley, 
Exec™  of  this  my  last  Will,  &  do  most  humbly  refer  my  dearest 
Wife,  &  Children  to  the  Grace  of  Gode,  commending  them  to  live 
in  the  Fear,  &  Service  of  Gode,  with  Duty  towarde  their  Mother, 
&  sincere  Affection  toward  each  other. 

I  give  to  ye  Revd  Mr  Walter,  Mr  Thair,  Mr  William  Williams  of 


STRUGGLING  FOR  OFFICE  203 

Weston,  Mr  Ebenezer  Williams  of  Pomfret,  to  each  Forty  Shillings 
for  a  Ring.~ 

Dated  Oct°  a;"1  1719  J  Dudley  &  a  Scale 

Publishd  in  Presce.  of  Penn  Townsend,  Benja  Gambling,  Abijah  Weld. 

Examd  $  John  Boydall  Reg. 
from  ye  original  Will 
A  true  Copy  *  from  ye  original  Will  Examd  $  Jn°  Cotton  Reg' 


CHAPTER  X 
THE  MOTIVES  OF  DUDLEY'S  ACTIONS 

THE  lives  of  the  second  generation  of  the  Massachusetts 
rulers  fell  in  a  peculiarly  unheroic  age.  Compared  with  the 
era  of  self-sacrifice  and  adventure  which  had  accomplished  the 
foundation  of  the  colony,  and  the  period  of  strife  and  war 
which  resulted  in  the  separation  from  England,  the  years  from 
1660  to  1720  seem  dull  and  uninteresting.  Nor  did  the  char- 
acter of  Dudley  and  his  contemporaries  rise  to  the  grandeur 
either  of  the  early  settlers  or  of  the  Revolutionary  leaders. 
The  men  of  the  early  eighteenth  century  lacked  the  self-sacri- 
fice and  almost  stubborn  opposition  to  England  which  char- 
acterized Winthrop  and  his  associates,  and  they  also  lacked 
the  singleness  of  ami  and  the  devotion  to  Massachusetts 
which  distinguished  Otis  and  Adams.  They  reflected  in 
Massachusetts  more  clearly  than  did  the  men  of  any  other 
time  the  thoughts,  the  life,  and  the  methods  of  the  English 
politicians.  The  problems  they  had  to  face  were  neither  those 
arising  from  privation  or  persecution,  nor  those  resulting 
from  oppression  which  might  occasion  rebellion.  Their 
property  and  estates  were  protected,  their  trade  and  wealth 
were  increasing,  their  peculiar  religious  opinions  were  tolerated, 
and  they  enjoyed  a  large  share  in  the  government.  They  had 
to  meet  an  English  policy  which,  consistently  pursued,  would 
result  in  closer  union  and  dependence  upon  the  mother  coun- 
try. To  such  problems,  until  the  colonists  could  convince 
themselves  that  they  had  the  right  to  differ  from  England  and 

204 


MOTIVES  OF  HIS  ACTIONS  205 

to  separate  from  her,  but  one  answer  could  be  given,  the 
answer  which  Dudley  and  his  fellow-thinkers  gave,  —  obedience 
to  England  and  acceptance  of  her  control. 

By  inheritance  and  training,  Dudley  belonged  to  the  ruling 
class.  His  strong  feeling  for  prerogative,  local  or  imperial, 
in  no  sense  exceeded  that  displayed  by  John  Winthrop  and 
Thomas  Dudley,  the  first  governors  of  Massachusetts.  The 
leaders  of  the  New  England  immigration  had  come  to  Massa- 
chusetts to  found  and  rule  a  community  as  they  saw  fit ;  and 
Joseph  Dudley  was  never  more  conscious  of  his  privileges, 
powers,  and  responsibilities  as  a  member  of  the  ruling  class 
than  were  they.  As  a  young  man  he  had  rendered  his  ser- 
vice to  the  colony  as  an  executive  and  leader ;  as  an  Assistant, 
a  commissioner  of  the  New  England  Confederation,  and  an 
Indian  negotiator  he  was  more  often  called  upon  to  execute, 
lead,  and  direct  the  opinions  of  the  General  Court  than  to 
follow  them.  His  friends,  his  family,  and  he  himself  sought 
to  be  the  guides  and  rulers  of  Massachusetts,  and  as  such  were 
accepted  by  the  people.  When  under  changed  conditions 
England  tried  to  increase  her  power  over  the  colonies, 
and  when  trade  and  wealth  brought  new  ideas  to  them, 
Dudley,  Stoughton,  and  Winthrop  the  younger  still  sought 
to  remain  leaders  of  the  community  which  their  fathers 
had  founded.  All  desired  place  and  honor  under  the  crown, 
and  all  accepted  royal  commissions  upon  the  dissolution  of 
the  government;  under  the  new  charter  Stoughton  served 
as  lieutenant-governor,  while  Winthrop  was  the  unsuccessful 
rival  of  Dudley.  Dudley's  very  success  aroused  envy  and 
jealousy,  which  his  frank  acceptance  of  the  policy  of  England 
did  not  diminish,  and  which  his  personal  character  greatly 
intensified. 

The  policy  that  Dudley  sought  to  enforce  was  one  which 


206  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

would  have  been  most  beneficial  to  England  and  the  colonies 
as  a  whole,  but  it  was  one  which  Massachusetts  and  the  other 
colonies  most  distrusted.  It  was  natural  that  his  insistence 
upon  the  prerogatives  of  his  office  should  anger  the  colonists, 
though  his  acts  were  in  obedience  to  the  instructions  of  the 
Board  of  Trade.  To  Dudley  the  navigation  system  and  the 
commercial  policy  of  Great  Britain  were  of  more  importance 
than  the  trade  of  Massachusetts,  and  he  sought  to  enforce 
English  law  despite  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  colonial  mer- 
chants; yet  he  was  keenly  alive  to  the  economic  needs  of 
Massachusetts,  and  in  frequent  letters  urged  the  Board  of 
Trade  to  encourage  her  industries.  His  military  policy 
included  all  New  England ;  and  his  plea  for  the  fortification 
of  the  frontier  posts  and  demand  for  the  command  of  the 
militia  of  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  though  plans  which 
aroused  opposition  in  the  colonies,  had  been  proposed  by  the 
English  authorities.  To  Dudley  the  union  of  all  New  England 
seemed  more  important  than  the  sacred  charters  of  Rhode 
Island  and  Connecticut;  and,  although  the  spirit  of  local 
patriotism  defeated  his  project,  his  plan  had  the  approval  of 
the  English  statesmen.  England  had  sought  in  vain  to  im- 
pose this  policy  upon  the  colonies  since  the  days  of  Andros. 
The  rough  sea-captain,  Sir  William  Phips,  though  a  popular 
hero,  failed  to  satisfy  the  colony  and  the  crown  alike.  Lord 
Bellomont,  though  personally  popular,  was  not  more  success- 
ful in  pleasing  both  the  colonists  and  his  superiors.  No 
royal  governor  could  enforce  the  English  policy  and  teach  the 
colonists  to  allay  their  prejudices  and  feel  a  pride  in  their 
dependence  upon  England. 

But  Dudley's  personal  character  was  not  such  as  to  invite 
confidence.  His  methods  were  not  always  straightforward, 
or  his  conduct  open  and  frank.  In  his  early  life  he  would 


MOTIVES  OF  HIS  ACTIONS  207 

"cringe  and  bow"  to  gain  a  friend;  but  when  his  object  was 
gained  he  would  sacrifice  that  friend  if  his  ambition  required 
it,  as  Randolph  and  the  Mathers  learned.  He  had  all  the 
selfishness  of  a  British  politician  of  the  eighteenth  century: 
he  was  pliant  to  his  superiors,  harsh  and  overbearing  to  his 
inferiors,  willing  to  use  all  means,  even  bribery,  to  gain  the 
support  of  an  influential  man,  and  ready  to  misuse  every  ad- 
vantage that  his  official  position  gave  him  to  take  revenge 
upon  an  enemy.  He  was  ambitious,  self-seeking,  and  facile; 
and  could  serve  for  his  own  ends  sovereigns  so  dissimilar  as 
James  II,  William  III,  and  Anne.  Believing  that  his  own 
interests  lay  with  the  official  party  in  England,  he  identified 
himself  with  it,  and  thus  sacrificed  his  popularity  at  home. 
His  services,  moreover,  were  efficient,  and  he  gave  satisfaction 
to  his  superiors,  whose  policy,  whatever  it  was,  he  was  ready 
to  carry  out. 

With  such  a  character  and  such  aims  he  could  not  but  be 
hated  in  the  colonies ;  and  the  hatred  that  attached  to  his  name 
was  deeper  and  more  consistent  than  fell  to  the  lot  of  any  other 
man.  From  1682  to  1715  it  is  doubtful  whether,  outside  of  his 
own  party  and  those  who  were  bound  to  him  by  fear,  interest, 
or  gratitude,  a  single  well-wisher  could  be  found  for  him  in  all 
New  England.  He  was  mobbed  in  the  revolution  of  1689, 
his  house  was  threatened  in  1707,  and  personal  violence  was 
offered  him  on  at  least  two  other  occasions.  Neither  Win- 
throp  nor  Stoughton,  who  in  many  ways  sympathized  with 
his  aims,  was  so  ill  regarded;  it  was  Dudley's  personal 
character  and  the  success  which  attended  most  of  his  plans 
that  made  him  so  much  more  unpopular  than  any  of  his  con- 
temporaries. Even  to  his  friends,  his  greatest  fault  was  his 
ambition.  He  loved  power  for  its  own  sake  and  for  the  in- 
creased influence  it  would  give  him.  To  gain  it  he  attached 


208  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

himself  to  the  party  favoring  English  influence,  and  was 
ready  to  sacrifice  his  popularity  hi  Massachusetts  by  accept- 
ing the  commission  as  president  of  the  Council  in  1685.  To 
keep  his  power  and  to  gain  the  support  of  the  ruling  class  in 
England,  he  consistently  worked  to  carry  out  the  policy  of 
the  English  government,  and,  as  it  seemed  to  the  colonists,  to 
sacrifice  their  best  interests.  To  be  sure,  he  was  ambitious 
for  Massachusetts;  he  wished  it  to  be  a  loyal  colony,  ready 
and  willing  to  support  England  on  every  occasion,  and  similar 
to  the  mother  country  in  all  ways.  He  wished  Massachusetts 
to  be  prosperous,  to  stand  well  financially,  and  to  be  a  model 
for  the  other  colonies.  Whenever  the  local  prejudices  of  the 
colonists  coincided  with  the  aims  of  the  English  government,  he 
sympathized  with  them  and  favored  them;  but,  when  they 
were  opposed  to  the  policy  of  England  and  to  his  ambition,  he 
forgot  that  he  was  a  New  Englander  and  became  a  royal 
official  looking  only  to  the  advancement  of  the  interests  of  the 
crown. 

Dudley  in  many  ways  became  an  Englishman.  He  had 
made  three  visits  to  England,  had  lived  there  for  over  thirteen 
years,  and  was  deputy-governor  of  the  Isle  of  Wight  nearly  as 
long  as  he  was  governor  of  Massachusetts.  He  was  admitted 
into  English  society  and  was  popular  there;  he  was  a  fre- 
quently consulted  member  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation 
of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts,  and  a  candidate  for  the  Royal 
Society;  he  served  in  Parliament  and  was  consulted  by  the 
secretaries  regarding  colonial  affairs.  For  nearly  thirty-five 
years  he  was  an  English  official  of  some  sort,  striving  to 
enforce  the  ideas  of  the  crown.  Thus  it  is  not  strange 
that  he  should  have  lost  somewhat  the  point  of  view  of  a 
colonial  leader,  and  have  identified  himself  with  the  ruling 
class  in  England. 


MOTIVES  OF  BIS  ACTIONS  209 

It  was  part  of  his  ambition  to  be  regarded  as  an  English 
gentleman.  He  sought  to  increase  his  estate  and  to  leave  a 
patrimony  sufficient  to  support  his  family  in  the  style  which  he 
thought  due  to  one  of  his  position.  It  has  already  been  seen 
that  while  he  was  in  England  he  feared  that  his  estates  would 
suffer  and  that  he  would  fall  into  contempt  and  poverty; 
but  while  he  was  governor  he  so  increased  his  fortune  that  he 
was  an  object  of  envy  and  suspicion  to  the  colonists.  He  gave 
his  eldest  son,  Paul,  a  legal  education  in  England,  and  solicited 
his  appointment  as  attorney-general,  secretary  of  the  Council, 
and  lieutenant-governor.  He  saw  that  his  children  married 
into  wealthy  and  influential  families,  thus  increasing  the  im- 
portance of  his  own.  To  English  travellers  coming  to  Massa- 
chusetts he  was  always  courteous  and  ready  to  put  himself  at 
their  disposal,  and  thus  passed  for  one  of  the  prominent  and 
popular  men  in  the  colony.  At  the  close  of  his  life  this  social 
ambition  was  gratified ;  for,  when  the  struggles  of  his  admin- 
istration were  over  and  their  bitterness  somewhat  forgotten, 
he  regained  much  of  that  popularity  which  must  have  been 
his  in  his  early  days. 

To  judge  Dudley's  career  by  the  accusations  of  his  enemies 
would  be  manifestly  unfair.  To  judge  him  in  the  light  of  the 
twentieth  century,  when  the  colonies  have  become  indepen- 
dent, would  be  equally  unfair.  As  has  been  said,  his  life  fell 
in  the  middle  period,  when  dependence  on  England  was  dimin- 
ishing and  independence  was  not  yet  possible.  From  his 
training  and  his  methods  of  thought  he  was  a  legalist,  and, 
always  taking  a  lawyer's  point  of  view,  could  see  in  the  action 
of  Massachusetts  only  illegal  and  revolutionary  attempts  that 
ought  to  be  checked.  Thus  he  threw  himself  into  the  struggles 
and  conflicts  as  an  English  official,  and  as  such  he  should  be 
judged.  Though  his  character  was  lacking  in  greatness,  and 


210  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

his  actions  were  often  tainted  by  self-seeking,  though  his  aims 
were  those  of  an  English  official  and  his  ideals  opposed  to 
those  of  his  fellow-colonists,  his  long  career  proves  him  to 
have  been  capable  as  an  administrator  and  efficient  as  a 
servant  of  the  crown. 


APPENDIX  A 

ROYAL    COMMISSION   TO   JOSEPH  DUDLEY,    GOVERNOR   OF  THE 

PROVINCE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  BAY  IN  NEW  ENGLAND, 

APRIL  i,   1702 

PATENT    ROLL 

No.  3424.  i  Anne.  (No.  8.) 


De  concessione 

Transcript.    Dudley  Armigero. 
Commissio 


Anne  by  the  Grace  of  God  etc., 
To  our  Trusty  and  Welbeloved 
Joseph  Dudley  Esquire  Greet- 


ing. Whereas  our  late  Royal  Brother  and  Sister 
King  William  and  Queen  Mary  of  Blessed  Memory 
by  their  charter  under  their  Great  Scale  of  England 
[7  Oct.  1691.]  bearing  date  the  seaventh  day  of  October  in  the 
third  yeare  of  their  Reigne  Have  united  Erected  and 
Incorporated  the  Colony  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay 
the  Colony  of  New  Plymouth  the  Province  of  Main 
in  New  England  the  Territorie  of  Accadie  or  Nova 
Scotia  and  the  landes  lying  between  the  said  Terri- 
torie of  Nova  Scotia  and  the  Province  of  Main 
aforesaid  into  one  real  Province  by  the  name  of  the 
Province  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  England 
and  have  thereby  granted  to  Our  loveing  Subiects 
the  Inhabitants  of  our  said  Province  or  Territory 
of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  England  and  their 
Successors  That  there  shall  be  a  Governor  a  lieu- 
tenant Governor  and  a  Secretary  of  our  said  Province 
and  Territory  to  be  from  time  to  time  appointed  and 
comissionated  by  us  or  Heires  and  Successors  With 
severall  Priviledges  Franchises  and  Immunities 


212  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

thereby  granted  to  our  said  loveing  Subiects  Wee 
therefore  Reposeing  especiall  Trust  and  confidence 
in  your  Prudence  Courage  and  loyalty  out  of  our 
especial  Grace  certaine  Knowledge  and  meer  mocion 
Have  thought  fitt  to  Constitute  and  appoint  And  by 
these  presents  Doe  Constitute  and  appoint  you  the 
said  Joseph  Dudley  to  be  our  Captaine  Generall  and 
Governor  in  chief e  in  and  over  our  said  Province  of 
the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New  England  And  for 
your  better  Guidance  and  Directions  Wee  do  hereby 
Require  and  Command  you  to  doe  and  execute  all 
thinges  in  due  manner  that  shall  belong  unto  the 
Trust  Wee  have  reposed  in  you  according  to  the 
several  Powers  and  Authorities  mencioned  in  the 
said  Charter  and  in  these  Presents  and  such  further 
Powers  and  Instruccions  and  Authorities  as  you 
shall  receive  or  Which  shall  at  any  tune  hereafter  be 
granted  or  appointed  you  under  our  Signe  Manual 
and  Signett  or  by  order  of  Our  Privy  Councill  in 
Pursuance  of  the  said  Charter  and  according  to 
such  reasonable  laws  and  statutes  as  are  now  in 
force  or  WTiich  hereafter  shall  be  made  and  agreed 
upon  in  such  manner  and  forme  as  by  the  said 
charter  is  directed  And  Wee  do  hereby  give  and 
Grant  unto  you  full  power  and  Authority  Where 
you  shall  see  Cause  and  shall  Judge  any  Offender  or 
Offenders  in  Capitall  or  Crimenall  matters  for  any 
Fines  or  Forfeitures  due  unto  us  fitt  Obiects  of  our 
Mercy  to  Pardon  all  such  Offenders  and  to  Remitt 
such  Fines  and  Forfeitures  Treason  and  Wilfull 
Murder  only  Excepted  In  Which  Cases  you  shall 
likewise  have  power  upon  extraordinary  Occasions 
to  grant  Repreives  to  the  Offenders  therein  To  the 
end  and  untill  our  pleasure  shall  be  further  Knowne 
And  Wee  Doe  hereby  Give  and  Grant  unto  you  the 
said  Joseph  Dudley  by  your  selfe  your  Captaines 
and  Commanders  by  you  to  be  authorized  full 


APPENDIX  A  213 

Power  and  Authority  to  levy  Arm  Muster  Command 
or  employ  all  persons  whatsoever  resideing  Within 
our  said  Province  and  Territorie  of  the  Massachu- 
setts Bay  in  New  England  and  as  occasion  shall 
require  them  to  Transferr  from  one  place  to  another 
for  the  resisting  and  Withstanding  of  all  Enemies 
Pirates  and  Rebells  both  at  land  and  Sea  and  such 
Forces  With  their  owne  consent  or  With  the  Con- 
sent of  our  Councill  and  Assembly  to  Transport  to 
any  of  our  Plantacions  in  America  as  occasion  shall 
require  for  the  Defence  of  the  same  against  the  In- 
vasion or  attempts  of  any  of  our  Enemies  and  such 
Enemies  Pirates  and  Rebells  if  occasion  shall  require 
to  pursue  and  prosecute  in  or  out  of  the  limits  of 
our  said  Province  or  any  part  thereof  And  if  it  shall 
soe  please  God  them  to  vanquish  apprehend  and 
take  and  being  taken  either  according  to  law  to  put 
to  death  or  to  keepe  and  preserve  alive  at  your  dis- 
cretion Wee  do  further  give  and  Grant  unto  you 
full  power  and  Authority  to  Erect  raise  and  build 
Within  our  Province  and  Territory  aforesaid  such 
and  so  many  Forts  Platformes  Castles  and  Fortifi- 
cacions  as  you  shall  judge  necessary  and  the  same 
or  any  of  them  to  fortify  and  furnish  With  Ordnance 
Amunicion  and  all  sorts  of  Armes  fit  and  necessary 
for  the  Security  and  defence  of  our  said  Province 
and  from  time  to  time  to  committ  the  Government 
of  the  same  to  such  Person  or  Persons  as  to  you 
shall  seeme  meet  And  the  said  Forts  and  Fortifica- 
tions againe  to  demolish  or  dismantle  as  may  be 
most  convenient  and  to  doe  and  execute  all  and 
every  other  thing  Which  to  a  Captaine  Generall 
doth  or  ought  of  Right  to  belong  as  fully  and  amply 
as  any  other  our  Captaine  Generall  doth  or  hath 
usually  done  according  to  the  Powers  hereby  granted 
or  to  be  granted  to  you  And  Wee  Doe  hereby  give 
and  Grant  unto  you  the  said  Joseph  Dudley  full 


214  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

power  and  Authority  to  Constitute  and  appoint  Cap- 
taines  Masters  and  other  commanders  of  Shipps  and 
to  grant  unto  such  Captaines  Masters  and  other 
Commanders  of  Shipps  Commissions  to  execute  the 
Law  Martiall  dureing  the  time  of  Actuall  Warr  In- 
vasion or  Insurreccion  and  to  use  such  Proceedinges 
Authorities  Punishments  Correccions  and  Execu- 
tions upon  any  Offender  or  Offenders  Which  shall 
be  mutinous  seditious  disorderly  or  any  Way  un- 
ruly either  at  Sea  or  during  the  time  of  their  abode 
or  Residence  in  any  of  the  Ports  Harbors  or  Bays 
of  our  said  Province  and  Territorie  as  the  Cause  shall 
be  found  to  require  according  to  Martiall  law  during 
the  time  of  Warr  as  aforesaid  Provided  that  nothing 
herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  the  enabling 
you  or  any  by  your  Authority  to  hold  Plea  or  have 
Jurisdiction  of  any  Offence  Cause  matter  or  thing 
committed  or  done  upon  the  High  Sea  or  Within 
any  of  the  Havens  Rivers  or  Creeks  of  our  said 
Province  or  Territories  under  your  Government  by 
any  Captain  Commander  lieutenant  Master  or  other 
Officer  Seaman  Soldier  or  Person  Whatsoever  Who 
shall  be  in  actuall  Service  and  pay  in  and  on  Board 
any  of  our  Shipps  of  Warr  or  other  Vessells  Acting 
by  Immediate  Commission  or  Warrant  from  our  High 
Admirall  of  England  now  and  for  the  time  being 
under  the  Scale  of  our  Admiralty  or  from  our  Com- 
missioners for  executing  the  Office  of  our  High  Ad- 
mirall of  England  for  the  time  being  But  that  such 
Captaine  Commander  lieutenant  Master  Officer  Sea- 
man Soldier  or  other  Person  soe  Offending  shall  be 
left  to  be  proceeded  against  and  Tryed  as  the  meritt 
of  their  Offences  shall  require  either  by  Commission 
under  our  Great  Scale  of  England  as  the  Statute  of 
the  Eight  and  twentieth  of  Henry  the  Eighth  directs 
or  by  Commission  from  our  High  Admirall  of  Eng- 
land now  and  for  the  time  being  or  from  our  com- 


APPENDIX  A  215 

missioners  for  executing  the  Office  of  our  High  Ad- 
mirall  of  England  for  the  time  being  according  to 
the  Act  of  Parliament  passed  in  the  thirteenth 
yeare  of  the  Reigne  of  our  Dearest  uncle  King 
Charles  the  second  of  blessed  memory  Entituled 
An  Act  for  the  Establishing  Articles  and  Orders  for 
the  Regulateing  and  better  Government  of  His  Maj- 
esties Navy  Shipps  of  Warr  and  forces  by  Sea  and 
not  otherwise  Saveing  onely  that  it  shall  and  may 
be  lawfull  for  you  upon  any  such  captaine  or  com- 
manders refuseing  or  neglecting  to  execute  or  upon 
his  negligent  or  undue  Execucion  of  any  the  Written 
Orders  he  shall  receive  from  you  for  our  Service 
and  the  Service  of  our  said  Province  and  Territorie 
to  Suspend  him  the  said  Captaine  or  Commander 
from  the  Exercise  of  his  said  Office  of  Commander 
and  committ  him  into  safe  Custodie  either  on  Board 
his  owne  Shipp  or  elsewhere  at  your  own  discretion 
in  Order  to  his  being  brought  to  Answer  for  the 
same  by  Commission  either  under  our  Great  Scale 
of  England  or  from  our  High  Admirall  of  England 
now  and  for  the  time  being  or  from  our  Commis- 
sioners for  executeing  the  Office  of  our  High  Ad- 
mirall of  England  for  the  time  being  as  is  before 
expressed  In  Which  case  our  Will  and  pleasure  is 
That  the  Captaine  or  commander  so  by  you  sus- 
pended shall  during  such  his  suspencon  [sic]  and 
Committment  be  succeeded  in  his  said  Office  by 
such  commission  or  Warrant  Officer  of  our  said 
Ship  appointed  by  our  High  Admirall  of  England 
now  and  for  the  time  being  or  by  our  Commissioners 
for  Executeing  the  Office  of  our  High  Admirall  of 
England  for  the  time  being  as  by  the  Known  Prac- 
tice and  Discipline  of  our  Navy  do's  and  ought 
next  to  Succeed  him  as  in  case  of  death  Sicknesse 
or  other  ordinary  disability  happening  to  the  com- 
manders of  any  of  our  Shipps  of  Warr  and  not 


216  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

otherwise  you  standing  also  accountable  to  us  for 
the  Truth  and  Importance  of  the  Crimes  and  mis- 
demeanors for  Which  you  shall  soe  proceed  to  the 
suspending  of  such  our1  Captaine  or  Commander 
Provided  also  That  all  disorders  and  misdemeanors 
comitted  on  Shore  by  any  Captaine  Commander 
lieutenant  Master  or  other  Officer  Seaman  Soldier 
or  person  Whatsoever  belonging  to  any  of  our 
Shipps  of  Warr  or  other  vessells  Acting  by  imme- 
diate commission  or  Warrant  from  our  High  Ad- 
mirall  of  England  now  and  for  the  tune  being  under 
the  Scale  of  our  Admiralty  or  from  our  Commis- 
sioners for  executeing  the  Office  of  our  High  Ad- 
mirall  of  England  for  the  tune  being  may  be  tryed 
and  punished  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Place 
Where  any  such  Disorders  Offences  and  Misde- 
meanors shall  be  soe  comitted  on  Shore  notwith- 
standing such  Offender  be  in  our  Actuall  Service 
and  in  our  pay  on  board  any  such  our  Shipps  of 
Warr  or  other  vessells  acting  by  immediate  Com- 
mission or  Warrant  from  our  High  Admirall  of  Eng- 
land now  and  for  the  time  being  or  from  our  Com- 
missioners for  executeing  the  Office  of  our  High  Ad- 
mirall of  England  as  aforesaid  Soe  as  he  shall  not 
receive  any  Proteccion  for  the  avoiding  of  Justice 
for  such  Offences  committed  on  Shore  from  any 
pretence  of  his  being  imployed  in  our  Service  at 
Sea  And  further  our  Will  and  pleasure  is  that  you 
shall  not  at  any  time  hereafter  by  colour  of  any 
power  or  Authority  hereby  granted  or  mencioned 
to  be  granted  take  upon  you  to  give  grant  or  dis- 
pose of  any  Office  or  Place  Within  our  said  Province 
and  Territories  Which  now  is  or  shall  be  granted  un- 
der the  Great  Seale  of  England  any  further  then 
that  you  may  upon  the  vacancy  of  any  such  Office 
or  Suspencion  of  any  Officer  by  you  put  in  any  per- 
son to  Officiate  in  the  Intervall  untill  the  said  place 


APPENDIX  A  217 

be  disposed  of  by  us  our  Heires  or  Successors  under 
the  Great  Scale  of  England  or  that  our  Direccions 
be  otherwise  given  therein    And  Wee  do  hereby  re- 
quire and  Command  all  Officers  and  Ministers  Civil 
and  Military  and  all  other  the  Inhabitants  of  our 
said  Province  and  Territorie  to  be  obedient  aiding 
and  assisting  unto  you  the  said  Joseph  Dudley  in 
the  Execucion  of  this  our  Commission  and  of  the 
Powers  and  authorities  therein  conteined  And  upon 
your  death  or  absence  out  of  our  said  Province 
and  Territories  To  our  Lieutenant  Governor  of  our 
said  Province  And  upon  such  your  death  or  absence 
and  the  death  or  absence  of  our  said  lieutenant 
Governor  to  our  Councill  of  our  said  Province  and 
Territory  for  the  time  being  To  Whom  Wee  do  by 
these  Presents  Give  and  grant  all  and  singular  the 
Powers  and  Authorities  hereby  granted  unto  you 
to  be  by  him  or  them  respectively  exercised  and 
enjoyed  untill  the  Returne  of  you  our  Governor 
or  of  our  lieutenant  Governor  or  the  Arrivall  or 
Constitucion  of  such  other  Governor  as  shall  be 
thereupon   commissionated   and   appointed   by  us 
And  our  Will  and  pleasure  is  That  you  the  said 
Joseph  Dudley  shall  and  may  hold  execute  and 
enjoy  the  Office  and  place  of  our  Captaine  Generall 
and  Governor  in  chief  in  and  over  our  said  Province 
and  Territories  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  in  New 
England  With  all  and   singular  the  Powers  and 
Authorities  hereby  granted  unto  you  for  and  dure- 
ing  our  Will  and  pleasure    And  Whereas  there  are 
divers  Colonies  adjoyning  to  our  Province  of  the 
Massachusetts  Bay  for  the  Defence  and  Security 
Whereof  it  is  requisite  That  due  care  be  taken  in 
the  time  of  Warr  Wee  have  therefore  thought  it 
further  necessary  for  our  Service  and  for  the  better 
Protection  and  Security  of  our  Subjects  inhabiting 
those  parts  to  Constitute  and  appoint  and  Wee  doe 


218 


THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 


by  these  presents  Constitute  and  appoint  you  the 
said  Joseph  Dudley  to  be  our  Captaine  General!  and 
commander  in  chiefe  of  the  Militia  and  of  all  the 
Forces  by  Sea  and  land  Within  our  Colonies  of 
Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantacion  and  the 
Narraganset  Country  or  Kings  Province  and  of  all 
our  Forts  and  places  of  Strength  Within  the  same 
And  for  the  better  Ordering  Governing  and  Ruleing 
of  our  said  Militia  and  all  our  Forces  Forts  and 
places  of  Strength  Within  our  said  Colonies  of  Rhode 
Island  and  Providence  Plantacion  and  Narraganset 
Country  or  Kinges  Province     Wee  do  hereby  give 
and  Grant  unto  you  the  said  Joseph  Dudley  and 
in  your  absence  to  our  lieutenant  Governor  or  Com- 
mander in  Cheif  of  our  Province  of  the  Massachu- 
setts Bay  all  and  every  the  like  Powers  as  in  these 
presents  are  before  granted   and  recited   for   the 
Ruleing  Governing  and  Ordering  our  Militia  and  all 
our  Forces  Forts  and  places  of  Strength  Within  our 
Province  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  to  be  exercised 
by  you  the  said  Joseph  Dudley  and  in  your  absence 
from  our  Territory  and  Dominion  of  New  England 
by  our  said  lieutenant  Governor  or  Commander  in 
Cheif e  of  our  said  Province  of  Massachusets  Bay  for 
the  time  being  Within  our  said  Colonies  of  Rhode 
Island  and  Providence  Plantacon  [sic]  and  the  Nar- 
raganset Country  or  King  Province  for  and  dureing 
our  Pleasure  And  lastly  We  have  determined  and 
made  void  and  by  these  presents  do  determin  and 
make  void  the  like  Commission  or  letters  Patents 
under  the  Great  Scale  of  England  bearing  date  at 
Westminster  the  thirteenth  day  of  February  now 
last  past  granted  by  our  said  late  Royall  Brother 
King  William  the  third  unto  the  said  Joseph  Dudley 
In  Witnesse  etc.  Witnesse  our  selfe  at  Westminster 
[i  Apr.  1702.]    the  first  day  of  April. 

By  Writt  of  Privy  Scale. 


[13  Feb. 

(See  Patent 
Roll.  14  Will. 

HI.  No.  2.) 


APPENDIX  B 
LIST  or  AUTHORITIES  CITED 

THE  longest  and  most  important  account  of  Dudley's  life  is 
to  be  found  in  Palfrey's  History  of  New  England,  where  his  two 
administrations  are  treated  at  length  and  in  detail,  but  with  evi- 
dent bias.  A  more  modern  and  better-tempered  account  of  his  ad- 
ministration as  governor  is  in  Doyle's  English  Colonies  in  America. 
The  chief  printed  American  sources  for  Dudley's  career  are  to  be 
found  in  the  laws  and  records  of  the  several  colonies  with  which  he 
was  connected,  and  in  the  collections  of  the  various  historical 
societies.  Of  these  the  Collections  and  Proceedings  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Historical  Society  are  the  most  important,  yielding  the 
Sewall  Diary  and  Letter-Book;  the  invaluable  pamphlets  on  the 
"Deplorable  State  of  New-England";  the  Winthrop  Papers,  in- 
cluding as  they  do  many  of  Dudley's  own  letters  and  the  letters 
of  Sir  Henry  Ashurst  and  John  Chamberlayne ;  the  records  of 
Dudley's  Council  of  1686 ;  and  the  Council  records  for  the  period 
in  1715,  when  the  Council  superseded  the  Governor.  In  the 
Andros  Tracts  and  Toppan's  Edward  Randolph  the  Prince  Society 
furnishes  valuable  material  for  the  early  period;  and  the  Ameri- 
can Antiquarian  Society  prints  the  Andros  Records. 

The  American  manuscript  sources  are  numerous  and  rich.  The 
Massachusetts  Archives  alone  contain  273  volumes  of  invaluable 
manuscripts,  most  of  which  were  used  by  Palfrey,  and  many  of 
which  are  printed  in  the  Massachusetts  Acts  and  Resolves.  The 
Journals  of  the  General  Court  and  the  transcripts  of  the  Records  of 
the  Council  are  in  manuscript  at  the  Massachusetts  State  House. 
The  Diaries  of  Cotton  Mather,  about  to  be  published,  are  in  manu- 
script at  the  American  Antiquarian  Society. 

The  chief  printed  sources  for  English  material  are  the  Calendars 

219 


220  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

of  State  Papers,  which  unfortunately  do  not  cover  the  period  of 
Dudley's  administration  as  governor,  and  the  two  volumes  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Privy  Council,  which  were  not  published  at  the  time 
this  investigation  was  made.  The  manuscript  sources  for  Eng- 
lish material  are  rich  and  varied.  The  collections  of  manuscripts 
at  the  British  Museum  and  the  Bodleian  Library,  Oxford,  furnish 
some  interesting  personal  material.  The  manuscript  Journals  of 
the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts, 
of  which  Dudley  was  a  member,  give  information  on  one  phase 
of  his  career ;  and  the  numerous  volumes  of  Letters  of  the  Society's 
missionaries  throw  interesting  sidelights  on  his  character.  The 
references  in  the  foregoing  pages  to  the  Register  of  the  Privy  Coun- 
cil are  to  the  manuscript  volumes  at  the  Privy  Council  Office. 
Most  important  of  all  are  the  invaluable  collections  of  the  Board 
of  Trade  at  the  Public  Record  Office,  London.  Here  are  the 
manuscript  Journals  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  the  Colonial  Entry 
Books,  and,  most  interesting  of  all,  the  Original  Papers  containing 
the  original  letters  and  documents  sent  by  the  colonial  officials 
to  the  Board  of  Trade.  Abstracts  of  these  have  been  printed  in 
the  Calendars  of  State  Papers  for  the  early  portion  of  Dudley's 
career ;  but  for  his  administration  as  governor  of  New  Hampshire 
and  Massachusetts  it  is  necessary  to  depend  upon  the  original 
manuscripts. 
ADAMS,  BROOKS.  The  emancipation  of  Massachusetts.  Boston, 

etc.,  1887. 

ADLARD,   GEORGE.     The  Sutton-Dudleys  of   England  and   the 
Dudleys  of  Massachusetts  in  New  England,  from  the  Nor- 
man Conquest  to  the  present  time.     New  York,  1862. 
[ALBIN,  J.]    A  new,  correct  and  much  improved  history  of  the 

Isle  of  Wight.     Newport,  1795. 
ALLEN,  WILLIAM.     The  American  biographical  dictionary.     3d 

edition.     Boston,  etc.,  1857. 

AMERICAN  ANTIQUARIAN  SOCIETY.  Proceedings  [1843-1880],  75 
nos. ;  New  Series  [1880-1909],  19  vols.  Worcester,  1843-1909. 
[Continued.] 

ANDREWS,  CHARLES  McLEAN.  British  committees,  commissions, 
and  councils  of  trade  and  plantations,  1622-1675.  Johns 


APPENDIX  B  221 

Hopkins  University,  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political 
Science,  Series  xxvi.  Nos.  1-3.  Baltimore,  1908. 

Colonial  self-government,  1652-1689.     New  York,  etc.,  1904. 

ANDROS  RECORDS.  Edited  by  R.  N.  Toppan.  American  Anti- 
quarian Society,  Proceedings,  New  Series,  xiii.  237-268,  463- 
499.  Worcester,  1901. 

ANDROS  TRACTS.    See  WHITMORE,  W.  H. 

ANONYMOUS.  The  case  of  his  excellency  the  Governour  and 
Council  of  the  province  of  the  Massachusetts-Bay  in  New- 
England,  truly  stated.  Edited  by  W.  C.  Ford,  Massachu- 
setts Historical  Society,  Proceedings,  2d  Series,  xv.  356- 
362.  Boston,  1902. 

The   deplorable    state   of    New-England,   by  reason    of  a 

covetous  and  treacherous  governour,  and  pusillanimous 
counsellors.  London,  1708;  reprinted  in  Massachusetts  His- 
torical Society,  Collections,  5th  Series,  vi.  97*-i3i*.  Boston, 
1879. 

Documents  relating  to  the  administration  of  Leisler.     New 

York  Historical  Society,  Collections,  Publication  Fund  Series, 
1868,  pp.  241-426.  New  York,  1868. 

A  letter,  from  one  in  Boston,  to  his  friend  in  the  country. 

In  answer  to  a  letter  directed  to  John  Burril,  Esqr.  speaker 
to  the  House  of  Representatives,  for  the  province  of  the 
Massachusetts-Bay  in  New-England.  [Boston?],  1714;  re- 
printed in  Davis's  Tracts  relating  to  the  Currency  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Bay,  111-145.  Boston,  etc.,  1902. 

A  memorial  of  the  present  deplorable  state  of  New-England, 

with  the  many  disadvantages  it  lyes  under,  by  the  male- 
administration  of  their  present  governour,  Joseph  Dudley, 
Esq.  and  his  son  Paul,  &c.  together  with  the  several  affi- 
davits of  people  of  worth,  relating  to  several  of  the  said 
governour's  mercenary  and  illegal  proceedings,  but  particu- 
larly his  private  treacherous  correspondence  with  her  maj- 
esty's enemies  the  French  and  Indians.  .  .  .  Boston,  1707; 
reprinted  in  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections, 
5th  Series,  vi.  3i*-64*.  Boston,  1879. 
—  A  model  for  erecting  a  bank  of  credit ;  with  a  discourse 


222  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

in  explanation  thereof.  Adapted  to  the  use  of  any  trading 
countrey,  where  there  is  a  scarcity  of  moneys;  more  es- 
pecially for  his  majesties  plantations  in  America.  London, 
1688 ;  reprinted  in  Davis's  Tracts  relating  to  the  currency  of 
the  Massachusetts  Bay,  35-68.  Boston,  etc.,  1902. 

[Joseph  Dudley  ?]  A  modest  enquiry  into  the  grounds  and 

occasions  of  a  late  pamphlet,  intituled,  A  Memorial  of  the 
Present  Deplorable  State  of  New-England.  By  a  disinter- 
ested hand.  London,  1707  ;  reprinted  in  Massachusetts  His- 
torical Society,  Collections,  5th  Series,  vi.  65*~95*.  Boston, 
1879. 

A  projection  for  erecting  a  bank  of  credit  in  Boston,  New- 
England.  Founded  on  land  security.  [Boston?],  1714;  re- 
printed in  Davis's  Tracts  relating  to  the  currency  of  the  Mas- 
sachusetts Bay,  69-84.  Boston,  etc.,  1002. 

Severals  relating  to  the  fund.  Printed  for  divers  reasons, 

as  may  appear.  Printed,  1682;  reprinted  ibid.  1-21.  Bos- 
ton, etc.,  1002. 

A  vindication  of  the  bank  of  credit  projected  in  Boston 

from  the  aspersions  of  Paul  Dudley,  Esqr.  in  a  letter  by 
him  directed  to  John  Burril  Esqr.  .  .  .  [Boston?],  1714; 
reprinted  ibid.  147-166.  Boston,  etc.,  1902. 

ARNOLD,  SAMUEL  GREENE.  History  of  the  state  of  Rhode  Island 
and  Providence  Plantations.  2  vols.  New  York,  etc.,  1850- 
1860. 

BATCHELLOR,  A.  S.    See  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 

BELKNAP,  JEREMY.  The  history  of  New-Hampshire.  3  vols. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  1784-1792. 

BLACKSTONE,  WILLIAM.  Commentaries  on  the  laws  of  England. 
Edited  by  T.  M.  Cooley.  2  vols.  Chicago,  1872. 

BOSTON.  A  report  of  the  record  commissioners  of  the  city  of 
Boston,  1700-1728.  [Vol.  viii.]  Boston,  1883. 

BOU\TER,  JOHN.  A  law  dictionary,  adapted  to  the  constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States.  New  edition,  revised  by 
Francis  Rawle.  2  vols.  Boston,  1897. 

BULLOCK,  CHARLES  JESSE.  Essays  on  the  monetary  history  of 
the  United  States.  New  York,  etc.,  1900. 


APPENDIX  B  22$ 

CHALMERS,  GEORGE.  An  introduction  to  the  history  of  the  revolt 
of  the  American  colonies.  2  vols.  Boston,  1845. 

Opinions  of  eminent  lawyers  on  various  points  of  English 

jurisprudence,  chiefly  concerning  the  colonies,  fisheries,  and 
commerce  of  Great  Britain.  Burlington,  1858. 

Political  annals  of  the  present  United  Colonies,  from  their 

settlement  to  the  peace  of  1763  ;  compiled  chiefly  from  records, 
and  authorized  often  by  the  insertion  of  state  papers.  Book 
i.  London,  1780.  Book  ii.  in  New  York  Historical  Society, 
Collections,  Publication  Fund  Series,  1868,  pp.  1-176.  New 
York,  1868. 

CHANDLER,  PELEG  WHITMAN.  American  criminal  trials.  2  vols. 
Boston,  etc.,  1841-1844. 

CHANNING,  EDWARD.     A  history  of  the  United  States  [1000-1760]. 

2  vols.     New  York,  etc.,  1905-1908.     [Continued.] 
-The  navigation  laws.     American  Antiquarian  Society,  Pro- 
ceedings, New  Series,  vi.  160-179.     Worcester,  1890. 

CHARLEVOIX,  PIERRE  FRANCOIS  XAVIER  DE.  History  and  general 
description  of  New  France.  Translated  by  John  Gilmary 
Shea.  6  vols.  New  York,  1868-1872. 

CHURCH,  THOMAS.  The  history  of  Philip's  war  .  .  .  also  of  the 
French  and  Indian  wars  at  the  eastward.  Edited  by  Samuel 
G.  Drake.  Exeter,  N.H.,  1829. 

CONNECTICUT.  [The  Moheagan  Indians  against  the  Governor  and 
Company  of  Connecticut  and  others.  The  case  of  the  re- 
spondents the  Governor  and  Company  of  Connecticut.  The 
case  of  the  respondents  the  land  holders.  To  be  heard  before 
the  right  honorable  the  lords  of  the  Privy  Council,  the  — 
day  of—  —1770.  No  title  page. 

The  public  records  of  the  colony  of  Connecticut  [1636-1776]. 

Edited  by  J.  Hammond  Trumbull.  15  vols.  Hartford,  1850- 
1890. 

CUTTS,  JOHN.  Letters  of  Lord  John  Cutts  to  Joseph  Dudley, 
1693-1700.  Edited  by  R.  C.  Winthrop.  Massachusetts 
.Historical  Society,  Proceedings,  2d  Series,  ii.  173-192.  Boston, 
1886. 

[DANFORTH,  THOMAS,  and  others.]     Charges  against  Andros  and 


224  TBE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

others.  Ms.  in  Massachusetts  Archives,  xxxv.  255.  Printed 
in  Andros  Tracts,  i.  149-173.  Boston,  1868. 

DAVIS,  ANDREW  MCFARLAND.  Currency  and  banking  in  the 
province  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay.  2  pts. :  i,  Currency ; 
ii,  Banking.  American  Economic  Association,  Publications, 
3d  Series,  Vol.  i.  No.  4;  Vol.  ii.  No.  2.  New  York,  etc., 
1900-1901. 

Tracts  relating  to  the  currency  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay, 

1682-1720.  Boston,  etc.,  1902. 

DOUGLAS,  CHARLES  H.  J.  The  financial  history  of  Massachusetts, 
from  the  organization  of  the  Massachusetts-Bay  Company 
to  the  American  Revolution.  Columbia  University,  Studies 
in  History,  Economics,  and  Public  Law.  Vol.  i.  No.  4. 
New  York,  1892. 

DOUGLASS,  WILLIAM.  A  discourse  concerning  the  currencies  of 
the  British  plantations  hi  America,  especially  with  regard  to 
their  paper  money  more  particularly,  in  relation  to  the  prov- 
ince of  the  Massachusetts-Bay,  in  New  England.  Boston, 
1740 ;  reprinted  by  C.  J.  Bullock  in  American  Economic  Asso- 
ciation, Economic  Studies,  Vol.  ii.  No.  5.  New  York,  etc., 
1897. 

DOYLE,  JOHN  ANDREW.  English  colonies  in  America.  5  vols. 
New  York,  1889-1907. 

DUDLEY,  DEAN.  History  of  the  Dudley  family.  Montrose,  Mass., 
1894  [1886-1894]. 

DUDLEY,  JOSEPH.  Letter  to  Increase  and  Cotton  Mather.  Massa- 
chusetts-Historical Society,  Collections,  ist  Series,  iii.  135-137. 
Boston,  1794. 

DUDLEY,  PAUL.  Objections  to  the  bank  of  credit  lately  projected 
at  Boston.  Being  a  letter  upon  that  occasion,  to  John  Burril, 
Esq. ;  speaker  to  the  House  of  Representatives  for  the  prov- 
ince of  the  Massachusetts-Bay  in  New-England.  Boston, 
1714;  reprinted  in  Davis's  Tracts  relating  to  the  Currency  of 
the  Massachusetts  Bay,  85-110.  Boston,  etc.,  1902. 

DUDLEY  RECORDS.     See  MASSACHUSETTS  (Council  Records). 

FELT,  JOSEPH  BARLOW.  An  historical  account  of  Massachusetts 
currency.  Boston,  1839. 


APPENDIX  B  225 

FOOTE,  HENRY  WILDER.  Annals  of  King's  Chapel.  2  vols. 
Boston,  1882-1896. 

FRY,  WILLIAM  HENRY.  New  Hampshire  as  a  royal  province. 
Columbia  University,  Studies  in  History,  Economics,  and  Pub- 
lic Law,  Vol.  xxix.  No.  2.  New  York,  etc.,  1908. 

GOODRICK,  A.  T.  S.    See  TOPPAN,  R.  N. 

GREAT  BRITAIN.  British  Museum,  Sloane  collection  of  manu- 
scripts. 

Calendar  of  state  papers.     Colonial  Series,  America  and  West 

Indies,  1574-1699.  Edited  by  W.  N.  Sainsbury  and  others. 
12  vols.  London,  1860-1908. 

Calendar    of    state    papers.     Domestic    Series,    1660-1677 

(Charles  II).  Edited  by  M.  A.  E.  Green  and  others.  18  vols. 
London,  1860-1909.  —  Domestic  series,  1689-1695  (William 
III).  Edited  by  W.  J.  Hardy.  6  vols.  London,  1895-1908. 

Calendar  of  treasury  papers,  1557-1728.     6  vols.     London, 

1868-1889. 

Privy  Council  Office,  Register  of  the  Privy  Council  (Ms.), 

Charles  II,  17  vols. ;  James  II,  pts.  i-ii ;  William  III,  6  vols. ; 
Anne,  6  vols. ;  George  I,  5  vols. 

Public  Record  Office,  Board  of  Trade  manuscripts,  (i)  Co- 
lonial entry  books,  New  England.  (2)  Journals  of  the  Board 
of  Trade.  (3)  Original  papers :  (a)  New  England,  (b)  New 
York. 

—  Statutes  of  the  realm.  Edited  by  A.  Luders,  T.  E.  Tomlins, 
J.  Raithby,  and  others.  Record  Commission,  n  vols. 
[London,  1810-1828.] 

HAWKINS,  ERNEST.  Historical  notices  of  the  missions  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  North  American  colonies  previous 
to  the  independence  of  the  United  States.  London,  1845. 

HINMAN,  ROYAL  RALPH.  Letters  from  the  English  kings  and 
queens  ...  to  the  governors  of  the  colony  of  Connecticut, 
together  with  the  answers  thereto,  1635-1749.  Hartford, 
1836.  [Cited  as  Hinman's  Antiquities.] 

HUTCHINSON,  THOMAS.  The  history  of  Massachusetts,  from  the 
first  settlement  thereof  in  1628,  until  the  year  1750.  3d 
edition.  2  vols.  Boston,  1795.  The  history  of  the  province 


226  THE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

of  Massachusetts  Bay,  from  the  year  1750,  until  June,  1774. 
Vol.  iii.  London,  1828. 

LUTTRELL,  NARCISSUS.  A  brief  historical  relation  of  state  affairs 
from  September,  1678,  to  April,  1714.  6  vols.  Oxford,  1859. 

MARVIN,  ABIJAH  PERKINS.  The  life  and  times  of  Cotton  Mather, 
D.D.,  F.R.S. ;  or,  a  Boston  minister  of  two  centuries  ago, 
1663-1728.  Boston,  etc.  [1892]. 

MASSACHUSETTS.  The  acts  and  resolves,  public  and  private,  of 
the  province  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  [1692-1780],  to  which 
are  prefixed  the  charters  of  the  province.  16  vols.  Boston, 
1869-1909. 

Archives  (Ms.),  273  vols.  In  the  Massachusetts  State  House, 

Boston. 

A  collection  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Great  and  General 

Court  or  Assembly  of  his  majesty's  province  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts-Bay, in  New-England;  containing  several  instruc- 
tions for  fixing  a  salary  on  the  governour,  and  their  determina- 
tions thereon.  As  also  the  methods  taken  by  the  Court  for 
supporting  the  several  governours  since  the  arrival  of  the 
present  charter.  Printed  by  order  of  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives. Boston,  1729. 

The  colonial  laws  of  Massachusetts.  Reprinted  from  the 

edition  of  1672,  with  the  supplements  through  1686.  Edited 
by  William  H.  Whitmore.  Boston,  1887. 

Council  records  (Ms.).  In  the  Massachusetts  State  House, 

Boston. 

Council  records  under  the  administration  of  President  Dud- 
ley, 1686.  Edited  by  R.  N.  Toppan.  Massachusetts  His- 
torical Society,  Proceedings,  26.  Series,  xiii.  222-286.  Boston, 
1900.  [Cited  as  "Dudley  Records."] 

Records  of  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  (Ms.).  In 

the  Massachusetts  State  House,  Boston. 

Records  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Massachusetts 

Bay  in  New  England  [1628-1686].  Edited  by  Nathaniel  B. 
Shurtleff.  5  vols.  Boston,  1853-1854. 

MASSACHUSETTS  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY.  Collections,  7  series,  66 
vols.  Boston,  1792-1907.  [Continued.] 


APPENDIX  B  227 

Lectures  delivered  in  a  course  before  the  Lowell  Institute, 

in  Boston,  by  members  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  So- 
ciety, on  subjects  relating  to  the  early  history  of  Massachu- 
setts. Boston,  1869. 

Proceedings  [1791-1909].     3  series,  42  vols.     Boston,  1879- 

1909.     [Continued.] 

MATHER,  COTTON.  Diaries  (Ms.).  In  the  collection  of  the 
American  Antiquarian  Society,  Worcester. 

Extract  from  his  diary.     Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 

Collections,  ist  Series,  iii.  137-138.     Boston,  1794. 

Magnalia  Christi  Americana :  or,  the  ecclesiastical  history  of 

New-England.     2  vols.     Hartford,  1820. 

MATHER,  INCREASE  and  COTTON.  Letters  to  Joseph  Dudley. 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  Collections,  ist  Series,  iii. 
126-134.  Boston,  1794. 

NEW  ENGLAND  COMPANY.  Some  correspondence  between  the 
governors  and  treasurers  of  the  New  England  Company  in 
London  and  the  commissioners  of  the  United  Colonies  in 
America.  [Edited  by  J.  W.  Ford.]  London,  1897. 

NEW  HAMPSHIRE.  Laws  of  New  Hampshire,  including  public  and 
private  acts  and  resolves  and  the  royal  commissions  and  in- 
structions, with  historical  and  descriptive  notes,  and  an 
appendix  [1670-1702].  Edited  by  Albert  Stillman  Batchellor. 
2  vols.  Manchester,  N.H.,  1904.  [Continued.] 

Provincial  papers.     Documents  and  records  relating  to  the 

province  of  New  Hampshire  [1623-1776].  Edited  by  Na- 
thaniel Bouton.  7  vols.  Concord,  etc.,  1867-1873.  [Con- 
tinued.] 

NEW  YORK.  Documents  relative  to  the  colonial  history  of  the 
state  of  New- York;  procured  in  Holland,  England,  and 
France  by  John  Romeyn  Brodhead.  Edited  by  E.  B.  O'Calla- 
ghan  and  Berthold  Fernow.  14  vols.  and  an  index  volume. 
Albany,  1853-1883. 

—  Journal  of  the  legislative  council  [1691-1775].     2  vols.     Al- 
bany, 1 86 1. 

Journal  of  the  votes  and  proceedings  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly [1691-1765].  2  vols.  New  York,  1764-1766. 


228  TEE  PUBLIC  LIFE  OF  JOSEPH  DUDLEY 

NEW  YORK  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY.  Collections.  Publication  Fund 
Series,  1868.  [Vol.  i.]  New  York,  1868. 

NOVA  SCOTIA  HISTORICAL  SOCIETY.  Collections.  14  vols.  Hali- 
fax, 1870-1910.  [Continued.] 

OSGOOD,  HERBERT  LEVI.  The  American  colonies  in  the  seven- 
teenth century.  3  vols.  New  York,  etc.,  1904-1907. 

OXFORD  UNIVERSITY,  ENGLAND.  Bodleian  Library,  Rawlinson 
manuscripts,  A,  C. 

PALFREY,  JOHN  GORHAM.  History  of  New  England.  5  vols. 
Boston,  1858-1890. 

PARKER,  JOEL.     The  first  charter  and  the  early  religious  legisla- 
•    tion   of   Massachusetts.     Lectures  delivered  before  the  Lowell 
Institute  by  members  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society, 
357-439-     Boston,  1869. 

PARKMAN,  FRANCIS.  A  half-century  of  conflict.  2  vols.  Boston, 
1892. 

QTJINCY,  JOSIAH.  The  history  of  Harvard  University.  2  vols. 
Cambridge,  1840. 

RHODE  ISLAND.  Records  of  the  colony  of  Rhode  Island  and 
Providence  Plantations  in  New  England  [1636-1792].  Edited 
by  John  Russell  Bartlett.  10  vols.  Providence,  1856-1865. 

SAVAGE,  JAMES.  A  genealogical  dictionary  of  the  first  settlers  of 
New  England.  4  vols.  Boston,  1860-1862. 

SEWALL,  SAMUEL.  Diary  [1674-1729].  3  vols.  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society,  Collections,  5th  Series,  Vols.  v-vii.  Boston, 
1878-1882. 

Letter-Book  [1686-1761].     2  vols.     Ibid.,  6th  Series,  Vols. 

i-ii.     Boston,  1886-1888. 

SMITH,  WILLIAM.  The  history  of  the  late  province  of  New  York, 
from  its  discovery  to  .  .  .  1762.  New  York  Historical  So- 
ciety, Collections  [ist  Series],  Vols.  iv-v.  2  vols.  New  York, 
1820-1830. 

SOCIETY  FOR  THE  PROPAGATION  OF  THE  GOSPEL  IN  FOREIGN 
PARTS.  Journals  of  the  proceedings  of  the  society  (Ms.). 
57  vols.  London. 

Letters  and  reports  of  the  missionaries  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury (Ms.).  26  vols.  London. 


APPENDIX  B  229 

STEPHEN,  LESLIE,  and  others.  Dictionary  of  national  biography. 
63  vols. ;  supplement,  3  vols. ;  Index  and  Epitome,  i  vol. 
London,  etc.,  1885-1903. 

SUMMER,  WILLIAM  GRAHAM.  A  history  of  American  currency. 
New  York,  1874. 

TOPPAN,  ROBERT  NOXON.  Edward  Randolph;  including  his 
letters  and  official  papers  from  the  New  England,  middle, 
and  southern  colonies  in  America,  with  other  documents 
relating  chiefly  to  the  vacating  of  the  royal  charter  of  the 
colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  1676-1703.  Prince  Society. 
5  vols.  Boston,  1898-1899.  Vols.  vi-vii  (paged  continuously), 
1678-1700.  Edited  by  Alfred  Thomas  Scrope  Goodrick. 
Boston,  1909. 

TRUMBULL,  BENJAMIN.  A  complete  history  of  Connecticut,  civil 
and  ecclesiastical,  from  the  emigration  of  its  first  planters 
from  England  in  1630,  to  1713.  Vol.  i.  Hartford,  1797. 

TRUMBULL,  J.  H.,  and  GREEN,  SAMUEL  S.  Report  of  the  coun- 
cil of  the  society  and  remarks  on  first  essays  at  banking 
in  New  England.  American  Antiquarian  Society,  Proceed- 
ings, New  Series,  Hi.  257-299.  Worcester,  1885. 

WATERS,  THOMAS  FRANKLIN.  Ipswich  in  the  Massachusetts  Bay 
Colony,  Ipswich,  1905. 

WEEDEN,  WILLIAM  BABCOCK.  Economic  and  Social  History  of 
New  England,  1620-1789.  2  vols.  (paged  continuously). 
Boston,  etc.,  1891. 

WENDELL,  BARRETT.  Cotton  Mather,  the  Puritan  priest.  New 
York  [1891]. 

WHITMORE,  WILLIAM  HENRY,  editor.  The  Andros  tracts.  3  vols. 
Boston,  1868-1874. 

WINSOR,  JUSTIN,  editor.  The  memorial  history  of  Boston,  1630- 
1880.  4  vols.  Boston,  1880-1881. 

WINTHROP.  The  Winthrop  papers.  Pts.  v-vi.  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society,  Collections,  6th  Series,  Vols.  iii,  v.  Boston, 
1889,  1892. 


INDEX 


ACADIA,  101,  see  also  Port  Royal. 

Addington,  Isaac,  secretary  of  Council, 
plans  to  supersede  Dudley,  194. 

Albany,  merchants  supply  Indians  with 
arms,  115;  gives  Dudley  information 
concerning  Indians,  130. 

Allen,  Reverend  John,  marries  widow  of 
governor  Thomas  Dudley,  2. 

Allen,  Samuel,  becomes  part  proprietor  of 
New  Hampshire,  140. 

Allen,  Thomas,  suit  against  Waldron,  142, 
143 ;  signs  petition  for  Dudley's  removal, 
182. 

Allyn,  [Allen]  John,  secretary  of  Connecti- 
cut, added  to  Andros's  Council,  41. 

Andros,  Sir  Edmund,  Dudley's  petition  for 
land  referred  to,  37 ;  commission,  40-42 ; 
character,  43-44 ;  arrival  at  Boston,  44 ; 
Council,  44;  method  of  raising  revenue, 
46-48;  regulation  of  towns,  40-50; 
question  of  land  titles,  50-51 ;  deposed, 
52;  policy,  55-56;  defence  of  frontier, 
93-94;  accused  of  furnishing  arms  to 
Indians,  115;  mentioned,  29,  39,  60,  61, 
100,  134,  135,  153,  167. 

Anne,  Queen  of  England,  commissions 
from,  to  Dudley,  as  governor  of  the  prov- 
ince of  Massachusetts  Bay,  75,  211 ;  New 
Hampshire,  134;  to  command  the  forces 
of  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut,  135 ; 
directions  to  the  General  Court,  95, 
96;  proclamation  concerning  coins,  158; 
death,  193. 

Appleton,  John,  tried  by  Dudley,  48. 

Ashurst,  Sir  Henry,  opposes  Dudley  in  the 
reversal  of  the  Leisler  attainder,  67 ; 
opposes  the  appointment  of  Dudley,  74, 
75 ;  defence  of  the  charter  of  Connecti- 
cut, 153-155;  enmity  to  Dudley,  176; 
attempts  to  have  Dudley  removed,  181, 
191-193;  letters  to  Winthrop,  144,  181, 
182;  mentioned,  66,  68,  74,  90,  147. 

Ashurst,  Sir  William,  elected  agent  for 
Massachusetts  but  declines,  191 ;  won 
over  to  Dudley's  party,  192 ;  supports 
Dudley,  174,  198. 


BAPTISTE, ,  prisoner,  negotiations  for, 

113,  114- 

Barbadoes,  Queen's  proclamation,  159. 

Bayard,  Nicholas,  member  of  Council  for 
New  York,  61,  62. 

Bellomont  (Richard  Coote),  earl  of,  gov- 
ernor of  New  York  and  Massachu- 
setts, appointed  governor  of  Massachu- 
setts, 69 ;  death,  75 ;  administration  in 
Massachusetts,  79;  mentioned,  73,  85, 
94,  95,  100,  134,  175,  206. 

Bills  of  Credit,  first  issued  in  Massachu- 
setts, 150-160 ;  during  Dudley's  adminis- 
tration, 161-164. 

Blackwell,  John,  plans  for  a  bank,  166-168. 

Blathwayt,  William,  member  of  the  Board 
of  Trade,  6 ;  clerk  of  the  Privy  Council, 
9;  Dudley  introduced  to,  14;  character, 
57-58;  influential  in  drawing  up  charter 
for  Massachusetts,  76;  aids  Dudley, 
58,  65,  67,  76,  85,  loo ;  activity  for  Dud- 
ley, 180-181. 

Board  of  Trade,  established,  6;  instruc- 
tions to  Dudley,  80,  81,  90,  93,  96,  97; 
recommendations  concerning  Connecti- 
cut and  Rhode  Island,  148,  149,  150; 
instructions  to  Usher,  137 ;  investigates 
charges  against  Dudley,  184;  Dudley's 
reports  to,  on  military  affairs,  87,  119; 
council,  88,  89;  fortifications,  95;  fail- 
ure at  Port  Royal,  1 23 ;  trial  of  Vetch, 
132-133.  note;  abortive  expedition  of 
1709,  125-126;  land  titles  in  New 
Hampshire,  141;  affairs  in  Connec- 
ticut and  Rhode  Island,  144,  148, 
150;  Dudley's  defence  before,  187- 
188. 

Boston,  town  meeting  condemns  Dudley, 
17  ;  castle  at,  30,  106,  107  ;  mentioned, 
3,  24,  44,  68,  75,  103,  105,  112,  124,  125, 
127,  128,  170,  193,  200. 

Bourland,  John,  tried  for  illegal  trade,  116, 
note,  184. 

Boyne,  battle  of,  65. 

Bradstreet,  Anne,  sister  of  Joseph  Dud- 
ley, 3- 


231 


232 


INDEX 


Bradstreet,  Simon,  marries  Anne  Dudley, 
3  ;  praised  by  Randolph,  10 ;  letter  from 
Dudley  concerning  quo  viarranto,  15 ; 
condemned  by  Boston  town-meeting,  17 ; 
named  one  of  Dudley's  council,  1686,  28 ; 
declined,  28,  note;  letter  to  Dudley 
advising  him  to  go  to  prison,  52-53. 

Bulkley,  Peter,  chosen  agent  to  England, 
1 1 ;  instructions  to,  i  i-i  2  ;  condemned 
by  Boston  meeting,  17;  member  of 
Dudley's  council,  1686,  29;  member  of 
Andros's  council,  44,  45. 

Burgess,  Elizeus,  appointed  governor  of 
Massachusetts,  174;  mentioned,  109. 

Burril,  John,  speaker  of  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, pamphlet  addressed  to  Paul 
by  Dudley,  172-173. 

CAMBRIDGE  COMMON,  Randolph  petitions 
for,  50. 

Canada,  plans  to  conquer,  101,  105,  119, 
124;  war  parties  from,  102  ;  mentioned, 
109,  115,  131,  160. 

Canterbury-,  archbishop  of  (William  San- 
croft),  letter  from  Randolph  concerning 
Dudley,  33~34- 

Casco,  conference  with  Indians  at,  108. 

Casco  Bay,  treaty  of,  109;  expedition  re- 
tires to,  122. 

Castine,  Church  expedition  conquers,  in. 

Chamberlayne,  John,  aids  Dudley,  72,  180, 
188;  character,  180. 

Champernowne,  Francis,  member  of  Dud- 
ley's council  of  1686,  29. 

Charles  I,  King  of  England,  appoints  com- 
mittees of  Privy  Council  for  colonial 
trade,  5. 

Charles  II,  King  of  England,  appoints 
Lords  of  Trade,  6 ;  plans  for  Maine,  12  ; 
agents  attempt  to  bribe,  15  ;  proceedings 
against  charter  of  the  Massachusetts 
Bay  Company,  12;  death,  24. 

Charles  II,  King  of  Spain,  death  of,  100. 

Church,  Benjamin,  expedition  against  Port 
Royal,  1 10-112;  mentioned,  119. 

Church  of  England,  members  to  be  toler- 
ated in  Massachusetts,  30;  establish- 
ment of  services  of,  32-34;  Dudley 
conforms  to,  66;  missionaries  of,  81. 

Commission  of  1664,  to  investigate  the 
conduct  of  Massachusetts,  8,  10. 

Connecticut,  joined  to  jurisdiction  of  An- 
dros,  41 ;  opposes  plans  of  Privy  Council, 
68;  government  of,  77,  78,  88;  refuses 
aid  asked  for  by  Dudley,  120;  Dudley 
given  command  of  troops,  135 ;  Dudley's 


military  policy  offends,  139,  140;  gives 
aid  to  Massachusetts,  143,  144 ;  objects 
to  Dudley's  command  of  troops,  145; 
Mohegan  Indian  case,  146-147 ;  attack 
on  charter  of,  151-155;  mentioned,  29, 
80,  101,  no,  134,  143,  176,  192,  206. 

Cooke,  Elisha,  leader  of  the  party  opposed 
to  Dudley,  14,  81,  82,  178,  187 ;  agent 
for  Massachusetts,  57,  76,  77;  opposes 
the  Mathers,  74;  refused  admission  to 
governor's  council,  89. 

Cornbury  (Edward  Hyde),  Lord,  opposes 
Dudley's  plan  for  utilizing  the  Iroquois, 
103,  note;  warns  Dudley  of  impending 
Indian  raids,  109 ;  governor  of  New 
York,  134;  conciliated  by  Dudley,  153; 
suggested  as  governor  for  Massachusetts, 
181,  note. 

Council  for  the  Territory  and  Dominion  of 
New  England  (Dudley's  council  of  1686), 
established,  27,  28;  powers  of,  29,  30; 
address  to  the  king  and  letter  to  the 
Lords  of  Trade,  32;  activity  of,  31-33; 

Court  of  Assistants,  Dudley  elected  mem- 
ber of,  3 ;  character  of,  5 ;  Randolph 
on,  10;  Dudley  dropped  from,  18,  25; 
compared  with  Dudley's  council,  30; 
mentioned,  29,  30. 

Courtemanche,  Sieur  de,  negotiates  for  ex- 
change of  prisoners,  113-114. 

Cox,  Daniel,  partner  of  Dudley  and  Stough- 
ton,  58 ;  offers  to  make  Dudley  deputy- 
governor  of  West  New  Jersey,  59. 

Cranston,  Samuel,  governor  of  Rhode  Is- 
land, opposes  Dudley's  taking  command 
of  the  militia,  148;  commissions  priva- 
teers, 150. 

Cutts,  John,  baron,  patron  of  Dudley,  65, 
67,  1 80 ;  appoints  Dudley  deputy-gover- 
nor of  Isle  of  Wight,  69 ;  letters  to  Dud- 
ley, 70,  71 ;  urges  Dudley's  appointment, 
75.  loo. 

DANFORTH,  THOMAS,  member  of  party 
opposed  to  Dudley,  14,  22 ;"  removed  from 
office,  30;  mentioned,  26,  36,  52. 

Deerfield,  attacked,  109. 

Dellius,  Reverend  Godfrey,  missionary,  73, 
75- 

Denison,  Daniel,  major-general,  marries 
Patience  Dudley,  3 ;  Randolph's  opin- 
ion of,  10. 

Devonshire  (William  Cavendish)  duke  of, 
opposes  Dudley,  192. 

Dongan,  Thomas,  resigns  as  governor  of 
New  York,  41 ;  mentioned,  60,  61. 


INDEX 


233 


Dorchester,  49. 

Dudley,  Joseph,  birth  and  early  training, 
2 ;  graduated  from  Harvard,  2 ;  freeman 
of  the  Massachusetts  Bay  Company,  2 ; 
representative  to  the  General  Court,  2 ; 
part  in  "King  Philip's  War,"  2;  mem- 
ber of  the  Court  of  Assistants,  3 ;  dropped 
from  Court  of  Assistants,  18,  24;  com- 
missioner of  the  United  Colonies,  3 ; 
activity  in  General  Court,  3;  agent  to 
England,  13-15 ;  condemned  by  Bos- 
ton town  meeting,  17-18;  letter  to  Sir 
Leoline  Jenkins,  19;  president  of  the 
council  for  the  Territory  and  Dominion 
of  New  England,  21,  24,  25,  26;  inaugu- 
ration, 26;  commission,  27,  28;  address 
to  council,  30;  activity  as  president,  31- 
32  ;  petitions  for  land  in  New  Hampshire, 
37 ;  Randolph's  accusations  against, 
3i.  33.  35.  30.  37;  compared  with 
Stoughton,  38;  member  of  Andros's 
council,  44,  45  ;  chief  justice,  45 ;  censor 
of  the  press,  45  ;  attitude  on  the  question 
of  raising  revenue,  46-47;  attitude  on 
land  titles,  50;  trial  of  Wise,  48;  ex- 
periences in  the  revolution  of  1689,  52- 
53  ;  charges  against,  53-55 ;  defence,  55  ; 
member  of  the  council  for  New  York, 
58-60;  commissioned  as  deputy-gov- 
ernor of  West  New  Jersey,  59;  Indian 
commissioner,  60 ;  trial  of  Leisler,  62-64 ; 
returns  to  New  England,  64-65  ;  goes  to 
London,  65;  deputy-governor  of  the 
Isle  of  Wight,  66,  69-71;  attacks  gov- 
ernor Phips,  66-67  ;  appears  before  com- 
mittee of  Parliament,  67 ;  member  of 
Parliament,  71;  life  in  London,  71-74; 
reconciled  with  the  Mathers,  74-75 ; 
commissioned  governor  of  Massachu- 
setts, 75;  instructions,  80;  voyage  to 
Massachusetts,  81 ;  reception,  82 ;  first 
address  to  General  Court,  86 ;  relations 
with  General  Court,  85-87,  97-99;  rela- 
tions with  council,  88-89;  report  con- 
cerning council,  90;  relations  with  the 
House  of  Representatives,  91-93 ;  ques- 
tion of  the  speakership,  92-93 ;  question 
of  fortifications,  93-95 ;  question  of 
salary,  95-97 ;  relations  with  Iroquois, 
102-104;  military  policy,  105-108; 
plans  for  the  defence  of  Deerfield,  109; 
Church's  expedition  against  Port  Royal, 
111-112;  negotiations  with  Vaudreuil 
for  exchange  of  prisoners,  113-115 ;  trial 
of  Vetch  and  his  accomplices  for  illegal 


trade,  116-119;  unsuccessful  expedition 
against  Port  Royal,  1707,  120-123 ;  abor- 
tive expedition  against  Port  Royal,  1709, 
123-125;  capture  of  Port  Royal,  126- 
127;  expedition  against  Quebec,  127- 
128;  plans  to  control  the  Indians,  129- 
132 ;  report  to  Board  of  Trade  on  trial  of 
Vetch,  132-133,  note;  relations  with 
lieutenant-governor  Usher  of  New 
Hampshire,  135-137 ;  military  plans  for 
New  Hampshire,  138-140;  question  of 
land  titles  in  New  Hampshire,  140-142; 
asks  aid  from  Connecticut,  143-144 ;  de- 
mands command  of  troops  of  Connecti- 
cut, 145 ;  Mohegan  Indian  trial,  146- 
147 ;  demands  command  of  the  Rhode 
Island  militia,  147-148;  asks  aid  from 
Rhode  Island,  148,  149;  attempts  to 
enforce  the  trade  laws,  149-150;  repre- 
sentations to  Board  of  Trade  concerning 
Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  151 ; 
attempts  to  repeal  the  charters  of  Rhode 
Island  and  Connecticut,  152-155 ;  pub- 
lishes the  queen's  proclamation  concern- 
ing the  value  of  coins,  158-159;  ad- 
dresses to  the  General  Court  on  ques- 
tion of  retiring  bills  of  credit,  162-164; 
early  attitude  on  banking,  165-167;  op- 
poses the  Land  Bank  party,  170-174; 
arouses  hostility  of  Land  Bank  Party, 
174;  removed  from  office,  174;  oppo- 
nents, 176-179;  supporters,  179-181; 
attempts  to  remove  in  1702,  181 ;  in 
1707,  the  Higginson  petition,  182; 
charges  against  in  "A  Memorial  of  the 
Present  Deplorable  State  of  New  Eng- 
land," 183;  resolutions  of  the  General 
Court  in  vindication  of,  184,  186 ;  reso- 
lutions of  the  council,  185;  attacked  in 
the  second  memorial  on  the  "Present 
Deplorable  State  of  New  England," 
186;  defence  in  England,  187-188;  "A 
Modest  Inquiry  into  the  Grounds  and 
Occasions  of  a  Late  Pamphlet  intitled 
'A  Memorial  of  the  Present  Deplorable 
State  of  New  England,'  "  1 88 ;  letters  from 
Increase  and  Cotton  Mather,  189 ;  reply, 
189-190;  wins  over  Sir  Charles  Hobby, 
191;  attempts  to  remove,  192-193; 
removal  by  the  Massachusetts  council, 
193-195,  "The  Case  of  his  Excellency," 
196-197 ;  restored,  197 ;  influence  after 
removal,  190-200;  death,  200;  will, 
201-203;  character,  i,  15,  23,  24,  37, 
56,  128-129,  155-156,  204-210. 


234 


INDEX 


Dudley,  Paul,  in  London,  73,  85 ;  memorial 
against  the  Land  Bank  party,  171 ;  pam- 
phlet against  the  Land  Bank  party, 
172-173;  plans  for  rewarding,  109]  re- 
membered in  his  father's  will,  201. 

Dudley,  Thomas,  governor,  2,  205. 

Dudley,  Thomas,  31. 

Dudley,  William,  messenger  to  Vaudreuil, 
105,  114,  115;  letter  concerning  retreat 
from  Port  Royal,  122;  removed  from 
office  by  council,  196;  remembered  in 
his  father's  will,  201-202. 

Dummer,  Jeremiah,  opposes  Land  Bank 
party,  173,  198;  buys  oS  Burgess,  174; 
elected  agent  for  Massachusetts,  192. 

Dummer,  William,  lieutenant-governor  of 
Massachusetts,  200. 

ENGLAND,  attitude  of  colonists  toward,  4 ; 
control  of  colonies  by,  5-8,  40-43,  175, 
205-206;  Dudley  in,  15-17,  53-55,  65- 
75,  208;  war  with  France,  93,  97, 
100-102,  160;  aid  from,  105,  119,  123- 
125,  126,  127;  Land  Bank  party  appeals 
to,  173,  174;  Dudley's  supporters  in, 
180-181. 

FLETCHER,  BENJAMIN,  governor  of  New 
York,  reports  Dudley  "very  unaccept- 
able to  the  people,"  60;  removes  Dudley 
from  the  council  of  New  York,  64 ;  corre- 
sponds with  Dudley,  64,  65  ;  experiences 
in  Connecticut,  145. 

France,  war  with  England,  see  England. 

French,  policy  in  regard  to  neutrality  of 
Indians,  102-105. 

GENERAL  COURT  OF  THE  MASSACHU- 
SETTS BAY  COMPANY,  parties  in,  2,  5,  14, 
25,  74;  reply  to  Dudley,  27. 

George  I,  King  of  England,  138,  179, 
103. 

George  III,  King  of  England,  146. 

George,  captain  of  frigate  Rose,  accused  by 
Randolph,  36 ;  seized  during  the  Revolu- 
tion of  1689,  52. 

Gidney,  Bartholomew,  member  of  Dudley's 
council,  1686,  29. 

Gold,  John,  arrested  and  tried  by  Dudley, 
35- 

Gordon,  Reverend  Patrick,  missionary  on 
voyage  with  Dudley,  81. 

Gorges,  Sir  Ferdinando,  proprietor  of 
Maine,  10;  claims  upheld  by  judges,  12  ; 
rights  purchased  from,  136. 

Grand  Pr6,  Church  expedition  retreats  to, 
in. 

HARTFORH,  Andres  holds  council  at,  41. 


Harvard  college,  Dudley  graduated  from,  2 ; 
Randolph  asserts  colonists  plan  to  make 
Morton  president;of ,  34 ;  scholarships  for, 
170;  Leverett  elected  president  of,  177. 

Hicks,  Thomas,  member  of  Dudley's 
council,  1686,  29. 

Higginson,  Nathaniel,  signs  petition  against 
Dudley,  182 ;  the  Higginson  petition, 
182,  185. 

Hill,  "Jack,"  commander  of  expedition 
against  Quebec,  127,  128. 

Hilton,  Winthrop,  nephew  of  Dudley, 
colonel  in  New  Hampshire,  139. 

Hinckley,  Thomas,  recommends  Dudley  to 
Blathwayt,  14;  member  of  Andres's 
council,  47. 

Hinks,  John,  signs  Higginson  petition,  182. 

Hobby,  Sir  Charles,  Ashurst's  candidate 
against  Dudley,  191 ;  won  over  to  Dud- 
ley, 191,  192. 

Holt,  Sir  John,  opinion  concerning  com- 
mand of  militia  in  charter  colonies,  152. 

House  of  Commons,  Leisler  bill  in,  67 ; 
copied  by  colonial  assemblies,  82. 

House  of  Lords,  Leisler  bill  in,  67 ;  bills 
introduced  to  repeal  charters  of  Con- 
necticut and  Rhode  Island,  152,  154. 

Hutchinson,  Elisha,  opposes  Dudley,  14. 

Hutchinson,  Thomas,  on  coins  in  Massa- 
chusetts, 157. 

Hyde,  Lawrence,  earl  of  Rochester,  agents 
attempt  to  bribe,  15. 

INDIANS,  attacks,  109;  Connecticut  In- 
dians, 1 10 ;  Dudley  Indian  commissioner, 

60,  75 ;  Indian  neutrality,  104-105,  107- 
108;     Maine,    31,     110-112,     129-132; 
Mohegans,  129,  146;  New  England,  115; 
New  Hampshire,  31;    New  York,  102; 
Nipmucks,  Dudley's  influence  over,  130; 
Pequots,  146. 

Ingoldsby,  Richard,  deputy-governor  of 
New  York,  trouble  with  Leisler,  62,  63. 

Ipswich,  48. 

Iroquois,  neutrality  of,  102,  103 ;  to  join 
Nicholson,  125. 

Isle  of  Wight,  Dudley  deputy-governor  of, 
57,  69-71 ;  Cutts  governor  of,  66;  Dud- 
ley's administration  of,  75. 

JAMES  I,  king  of  England,  appoints  com- 
mittee of  Privy  Council  for  colonial 
affairs,  5. 

James  II,  king  of  England,  accession,  24; 
letter  of  council  for  Massachusetts  to, 
32 ;  letter  to  Andros,  47 ;  mentioned,  57, 

61,  152,  207. 


INDEX 


235 


Jenkins,  Sir  Leoline,  Randolph  warns  con- 
cerning Dudley,  14;  Randolph  proposes 
plan  for  settlement  of  New  England  to, 
21 ;  Dudley  explains  attitude  of  colonists 
to,  19;  Dudley  uses  his  influence,  23. 

Jesuit,  priests  in  Maine,  107. 

KEITH,  REVEREND  GEORGE,  missionary 
accompanying  Dudley,  81. 

King's  Province,  the,  represented  in  Dud- 
ley's council,  1686,  by  Fitz-John  Winthrop, 
29 ;  Dudley  visits  and  organizes,  31. 

Kirke,  Colonel  Piercey,  Randolph  opposes 
appointment  as  governor  of  Massachu- 
setts, 21,  23;  preliminary  drafts  of  com- 
mission and  instructions  for,  24;  Dud- 
ley substituted  for,  43. 

LAND  BANK,  early  attempts  to  found,  164- 
167 ;  attempts  in  Dudley's  administra- 
tion, 167-174;  Land  Bank  party  op- 
posed to  Dudley,  179;  Dudley's  opposi- 
tion to,  194,  198. 

Leeds  (Thomas  Osborne),  duke  of,  pledged 
to  Dudley's  support,  67. 

Leisler,  Jacob,  trial  of,  60-64;  reversal  of 
attainder  against,  67 ;  Dudley  appears 
at  hearing  in  Parliament  on  reversal  of 
attainder,  67 ;  Dudley's  part  in  trial  dis- 
approved of,  81,  189. 

Leverett,  John,  president  of  Harvard  Col- 
lege, 177,  185. 

Livingstone,  Robert,  Cornbury  objects  to, 
103  ;  Vetch  marries  daughter  of,  1 23  ; 
trade  with  Indians,  185. 

London  (Henry  Compton),  bishop  of, 
Randolph  on  Dudley  to,  14;  Ratcliffe 
sent  to  Boston  by,  33  ;  patron  of  Dudley, 
180;  Dudley  sends  "judicious  letters" 
to,  181. 

London,  city  of,  Dudley  arrives  at,  53,  65, 
66 ;  Paul  Dudley  joins  father  in,  73 ; 
colonists  resident  in  favor  of  Dudley, 
75- 

Long  Island,  Dudley  holding  court  at  time 
of  Revolution  of  1689,  52 ;  English  settle- 
ments on,  61. 

Lords  of  Trade,  established,  6 ;  proprie- 
tors of  Maine  and  New  Hampshire 
appeal  to,  10 ;  report  on  Massachusetts, 
ii ;  demand  agents  from  Massachusetts, 
13 ;  order  quo  warranto  proceedings  against 
Massachusetts,  17;  letter  from  Dudley's 
council,  1686,  to,  32 ;  Dudley's  defence 
before,  55  ;  Blathwayt  member  of,  57  ; 
Fletcher  reports  on  Dudley  to,  60 ;  re- 
port to  Privy  Council  on  question  of  con- 


solidation of  colonies,  68 ;  policy  of,  7,  8, 
4°-  43- 

Louis  XIV,  king  of  France,  too. 

MAINE,  rights  exercised  by  Massachusetts 
in,  7,  8,  10;  colonial  agents  sent  to  Eng- 
land concerning,  n  ;  purchase  of,  12, 14; 
Massachusetts  plans  to  surrender,  17; 
united  with  Massachusetts,  28;  repre- 
sentatives from,  29 ;  Randolph  sells  of- 
fices in,  31 ;  joined  with  Massachusetts, 
77 ;  responsibility  of  Massachusetts  for, 
102 ;  the  French  attacks  in,  103 ;  de- 
fence of,  139. 

March,  John,  commander  of  expedition 
against  Port  Royal,  1707,  121,  122. 

Marlborough  (John  Churchill),  duke  of, 
Cutts  recommends  Dudley  to,  75,  100. 

Martindale,  Isaac,  Major,  commander  of 
militia  of  Rhode  Island,  148. 

Maryland,  attorney-general  Holt's  opinion 
on  charter,  152. 

Mason,  John,  Captain,  proprietor  of  New 
Hampshire,  8;  efforts  to  colonize  New 
Hampshire,  10;  claims  to  New  Hamp- 
shire, 12,  140. 

Mason,  John,  Major  (Connecticut),  146. 

Mason,  Robert,  member  of  Dudley's 
council,  1686,  33. 

Massachusetts  Bay  Colony,  material  con- 
dition of,  1,4;  political  condition  of,  3-5 ; 
commission  to  investigate,  8;  claims  to 
Maine  and  New  Hampshire,  10;  agents 
of,  10-11;  instructions  to  agents,  12, 
16-17;  charter  annulled,  20;  plans  for 
government  of,  24 ;  Maine,  New  Hamp- 
shire, King's  Province  added  to,  28; 
Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  New  Plym- 
outh, New  York,  and  New  Jersey 
added  to,  40-42 ;  news  of  landing  of 
William  of  Orange  reaches,  5 1 ;  Revolu- 
tion in,  51-53;  favors  plans  of  Lords  of 
Trade  to  consolidate  colonies,  68 ;  finan- 
cial legislation  of,  157-160. 

Massachusetts  Bay  Company,  Dudley 
made  freeman  of,  2  ;  charter  revoked,  20, 
22,  28 ;  reply  to  Dudley,  28. 

Massachusetts  Bay  Province,  charter  of, 
77;  government  of,  77-88;  feeling  tow- 
ard Dudley,  81-82  ;  defence  of  frontier, 
93-94 ;  salary  question,  95-97 ;  military 
problems,  100-105,  130-140;  jealousies 
in,  175;  favorable  addresses  for  Dudley, 
183  ;  General  Court  of,  77-79.  82,  85.  87, 
96 ;  Dudley's  influence  with,  97-99 ; 
votes  expedition  against  Port  Royal,  i  to ; 


236 


INDEX 


trial  of  Vetch,  n6-ug;  activity  in  mili- 
tary affairs,  125, 126, 128;  disapproves  of 
Dudley's  Indian  policy,  130-131 ;  issues 
bills  of  credit,  159.  Council  of,  77 ; 
Dudley's  relations  with,  88-91 ;  removes 
Dudley,  193-195;  governs  Massachu- 
setts, 195-197.  House  of  Representatives 
of,  77,  84;  Dudley's  control  of,  91-93; 
attitude  on  bills  of  credit,  161-164. 

Mather,  Cotton,  on  Massachusetts  agents, 
13 ;  Dudley's  letter  of  defence  concern- 
ing his  administration  of  1686  to,  53 ; 
Dudley  reconciled  with,  74 ;  recommends 
Dudley  for  governor,  75;  opposed  to 
Cooke,  82  ;  blames  Dudley  for  failure  of 
expedition  against  Port  Royal,  112;  ac- 
cuses Dudley  of  connivance  with  illegal 
trade,  119 ;  opposed  to  Dudley,  176-177 ; 
reputed  author  of  "A  Memorial  on  the 
Deplorable  State  of  New  England,"  183 ; 
letter  accusing  Dudley,  184. 

Mather,  Increase,  letter  from  Richards  on 
difficulties  of  agents,  15 ;  opposed  to 
Dudley,  17;  Dudley  seeks  advice  from, 
26 ;  Constantine  Phipps  to,  68 ;  desires 
to  be  colonial  agent,  74;  attitude  tow- 
ard new  charter,  77  ;  advice  to  William 
III,  79 ;  opposed  to  Cooke,  82 ;  opposed 
to  Dudley,  176-177. 

Mohegan  Indians,  129. 

Mompresson,  Roger  (chief  justice  of  New 
Jersey),  opinion  of  Rhode  Island,  149. 

Monmouth  (James  Fitz-Roy),  duke  of, 
plans  for  a  province  for,  1 2  ;  rebellion,  24. 

Morton, ,  suggested  as  president  for 

Harvard  college,  34. 

NAHANT  NECK,  Randolph  petitions  for,  50. 

Narragansett  Country,  Dudley  organizes 
government  in,  31-32. 

Navigation  Laws,  7,  81. 

New  Castle,  fort  at,  139. 

New  England,  united  colonies  of,  3,  43 ; 
Dudley's  council  for,  27-30;  dominion 
of,  40-42,  134;  Dudley's  plans  for  de- 
fence of,  97,  105-108. 

New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts  claims  to, 
7,  8 ;  defence  of  Massachusetts  conduct 
in,  ii ;  judges  decide  Massachusetts  has 
no  claim  to,  12;  united  to  Massachu- 
setts, 28;  Randolph  sells  offices  in,  31; 
Lords  of  Trade  recommend  consolidation 
with  other  colonies,  68;  separate  royal 
province,  77 ;  Dudley  commissioned 
governor  of,  79;  ordered  to  fortify 
posts,  94;  Massachusetts  to  aid,  no; 


Dudley  popular  in,  135-138;  Usher's 
career  in,  135-136;  defence  of,  138-140; 
question  of  land  titles  in,  140-143 ;  party 
opposed  to  Dudley  signs  Higginson  peti- 
tion, 182 ;  addresses  favorable  to  Dud- 
ley from,  183. 

New  Jersey,  added  to  the  dominion  of  New 
England,  41. 

New  London,  military  conference  at,  128. 

Newman,  Henry,  Dudley's  candidate  for 
agent  from  Massachusetts,  192. 

New  Plymouth,  boundary  dispute  with 
Massachusetts,  3 ;  added  to  dominion  of 
New  England,  29;  added  to  Massachu- 
setts, 77. 

Newport,  Isle  of  Wight,  69. 

Newport,  Rhode  Island,  148. 

Newton,  Isle  of  Wight,  Dudley  elected 
member  of  Parliament  from,  71. 

New  York,  added  to  the  dominion  of  New 
England,  29,  41 ;  Andres's  career  as 
governor  of,  43-44 ;  Sloughter  governor  of, 
57  ;  Dudley  in  council  of,  58-59 ;  Leisler's 
rebellion  in,  61-64 ;  development  of  con- 
stitution of,  83-84;  defence  of,  101,  102, 
103;  separated  from  Massachusetts 
under  Cornbury,  134. 

Nicholson,  Francis,  governor  of  New  York, 
60,  6 1 ;  expedition  against  Port  Royal, 
124,  125,  128. 

Nipmuck  Indians,  Dudley's  influence  over, 
130. 

Northey,  Edward,  attorney-general,  opin- 
ion on  ownership  of  land  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, 140;  opinion  on  power  of  Massa- 
chusetts council  to  depose  Dudley,  197. 

Nottingham  (Daniel  Finch),  earl  of,  secre- 
tary of  state,  Mompresson  on  Rhode 
Island  to,  149;  Dudley  conciliates,  181. 

Nova  Scotia,  plans  to  conquer,  119. 

Nowell,  Samuel,  letter  to  Richards  on  diffi- 
culties of  agents,  16;  member  of  party 
opposed  to  Dudley,  17,  22. 

OAKES,  THOMAS,  Dudley  opposes  as 
speaker  of  the  Massachusetts  House  of 
Representatives,  92-93. 

PAIGE,  NICHOLAS,  signs  Dudley's  bond  for 
release,  52. 

Paige,  Mrs.  Nicholas,  niece  of  Dudley, 
house  wrecked  time  of  Revolution,  52. 

Parliament,  colonial  policy  of,  5 ;  Leisler 
bill  in,  66;  Dudley  member  of.  71,  180; 
colonial  assemblies  copy,  82-83 ;  bill  to 
revoke  charters  of  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island  in,  151-152. 


INDEX 


237 


Partridge,  Richard,  signs  petition  against 
Dudley,  182. 

Partridge,  William,  signs  petition  against 
Dudley,  182,  183. 

Pemaquid,  fortifications  at,  93,  94;  Dud- 
ley visits,  106 ;  Dudley  fails  to  get  appro- 
priation for  rebuilding  fort  at,  107. 

Penn,  William,  aids  Rhode  Island,  155. 

Philip,  "King  "  War,  2,  in ;  Dudley  com- 
missioner in  war,  2,  1 29. 

Phillips,  Reverend ,  25. 

PhiUipse,  Frederick,  member  of  council  of 
New  York,  61. 

Phipps,  Constantine,  agent  for  Massachu- 
setts, opposes  Dudley,  67,  68;  Dudley 
wins  to  his  side,  74. 

Phips,  Sir  William,  governor  of  Massachu- 
setts, difficulties,  64,  65,  79,  85 ;  Dudley 
tries  to  succeed,  66,  176;  Dudley  has 
arrested,  67 ;  builds  fort  at  Pemaquid, 
94 ;  fails  to  get  a  fixed  salary,  94 ;  gains 
Port  Royal,  101 ;  fails  at  Quebec,  159; 
accepts  bills  of  credit,  160. 

Piscataqua,  fort  at,  93, 106. 

Pontchartrain,  Jerome  Phelypeaux,  Comte 
de,  Indian  policy  of,  105. 

Portland  (William  Bentinck),  earl  of, 
patron  of  Dudley,  67. 

Port  Royal,  French  possession  of,  threatens 
Massachusetts,  84,  101,  102;  Church 
expedition  against,  110-112;  expedition 
of  1707  against,  120-123;  expedition  of 
1709  against,  123-125;  capture  of,  126- 
127. 

Portsmouth,  fort  at,  139. 

Privy  Council,  committees  appointed  for 
colonial  affairs,  5,  6,  see  also  Lords  of 
Trade  and  Board  of  Trade;  considers 
consolidation  of  the  colonies,  68 ;  orders 
a  new  trial  of  Vetch,  118;  hearings  on 
Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  charters, 
153-154;  hears  and  dismisses  charges 
against  Dudley,  184-189. 

Pyncheon,  John,  member  of  Dudley's  coun- 
cil, 1686,  29. 

QUAKERS,  in  Rhode  Island,  147,  155;  op- 
poses Dudley  in  his  command  of  the  mili- 
tia, 148. 

Quarry,  Robert,  opinion  of  Massachusetts 
council,  90;  advice  concerning  coinage, 
158;  accusations  of  illegal  trade,  184, 185. 

Quebec,  Phips'  expedition  against,  64,  79, 
159;  policy  of  government  at,  103; 
Vetch  sent  as  messenger  to,  114;  expedi- 
tion against,  159. 


Quo  warranlo  proceedings,  against  Massa- 
chusetts, 15-16,  21 ;  against  Connecticut, 
29,  41 ;  against  Rhode  Island,  29,  41. 

RANDOLPH,  EDWARD,  messenger  to  Massa- 
chusetts, 8;  report  on  Massachu- 
setts, o-io,  13 ;  opinion  of  Dudley 
and  Richards,  14 ;  plans  government  for 
Massachusetts  with  Dudley,  18,  25; 
urges  Dudley's  appointment,  21 ;  serves 
notice  of  quo  warrants  proceedings  on 
Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  29,  41 ; 
complaints  of,  32,  36-37 ;  aids  Ratdiffe 
in  establishing  King's  Chapel,  33-34; 
member  of  Andros's  council,  44 ;  at- 
tempts to  influence  Blaihwayt  against 
Dudley,  58. 

Ratdiffe,  Robert,  first  rector  of  King's 
Chapel,  33. 

Rawson,  Edward,  signs  address  of  General 
Court  criticising  Dudley's  commission, 
27;  refuses  to  surrender  records  of  Gen- 
eral Court,  35. 

Redknap,  John,  engineer  on  expedition 
against  Port  Royal,  121,  122. 

Rhode  Island,  quo  warranto  proceedings 
against,  29,  41 ;  submits  to  Andros,  41 ; 
government  of,  78,  88 ;  military  position 
of,  101 ;  Dudley  receives  command  of 
militia,  135;  objects  to  Dudley's  com- 
mission, 148;  Dudley's  complaints 
concerning,  148,  149;  Dudley's  difficul- 
ties in  enforcing  the  trade  laws  in,  149- 
150;  attempt  to  revoke  charter  of, 

iSi-iSS- 

Richards,  John,  chosen  agent  of  Massachu- 
setts, 13;  Randolph's  opinion  of,  14; 
complains  concerning  difficulties  of  posi- 
tion, 15,  16;  opposes  Dudley,  18. 

Rochester,  town  named  by  Dudley  allows 
him  to  take  command  of  militia,  148. 

Romer,  Wolfgang  William,  engineer  ap- 
pointed to  rebuild  fortifications,  106. 

Rouse,  William,  abuses  Dudley's  permission 
to  trade  with  Indians,  187. 

Roxbury,  3,  25,  64,  200. 

Ryswick,  peace  of,  102,  120. 

SALTONSTALL,  NATHANIEL,  member  of 
Dudley's  council,  1686,  29. 

Savage,  Thomas,  "King  Philip's  War,"  2. 

Sawyer,  Sir  Robert,  advises  scire  jacias 
against  Massachusetts,  20. 

Scire  facias,  proceedings  against  Massachu- 
setts, 20,  20,  note. 

Sergeant,  Peter,  Dudley  disallows  election 
of,  89;  Dudley  allows  admission  of,  90. 


238 


INDEX 


Sewall,  Samuel,  advises  submission  to 
Dudley'commission  of  1686,  26;  peti- 
tions for  patent  for  land,  51 ;  member  of 
House  committee  on  question  of  speaker, 
93;  position  in  trial  of  Vetch,  117-118; 
opinion  as  to  bills  of  credit,  159;  with- 
draws vote  of  vindication  for  governor, 
190;  hostility  to  Dudley,  177-178;  con- 
ferences with  Dudley  over  question  of 
removal,  194-195. 

Shrimpton,  Samuel,  signs  Dudley's  bail 
bond,  52. 

Shute,  Samuel,  appointed  governor  of 
Massachusetts,  174;  arrival,  109. 

Sidney  (Henry),  earl  of  Romney,  patron  of 
Dudley,  67. 

Sloughter,  Henry,  governor  of  New  York, 
urges  Dudley's  appointment,  58;  Dud- 
ley loans  money  to,  60;  part  in  Leisler 
trial,  62,  63. 

Society  for  the  Propagation  of  Christian 
Knowledge,  Chamberlayne  a  member  of, 
72. 

Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel 
in  Foreign  Parts,  Dudley  joins,  72 ;  con- 
tributes paper  to,  72 ;  missionaries  from, 
81. 

Southwell,  Sir  Robert,  Randolph  writes 
concerning  Kirke,  21 ;  Dudley  appeals  to, 
23 ;  Randolph  complains  to  concerning 
Dudley,  36. 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  General  Court,  92-93. 

Stanhope,  James,  urges  the  appointment  of 
Burgess,  174,  198. 

St.  Asaph,  bishop  of  (William  Lloyd),  Ran- 
dolph writes  to,  2 1 ;  (Edward  Jones) 
urges  Dudley's  appointment,  75. 

Steele,  Sir  Richard,  secretary  of  Lord  Cutts, 
correspondent  of  Dudley,  72. 

Stoddard,  Reverend  Solomon,  urges  use  of 
dogs  in  Indian  war,  109,  note;  signs  a 
petition  for  Dudley's  continuance,  188. 

Stoughton,  William,  agent  for  Massachu- 
setts, 1 1 ;  instructions  to,  1 2  ;  condemned 
by  Boston  town  meeting,  17  ;  refuses  to 
serve  as  Assistant,  25  ;  member  of  Dud- 
ley's council,  1686,  28,  29;  appointed 
judge  by  Dudley,  31 ;  compared  with 
Dudley,  38 ;  member  of  Andres's  council, 
44.  45.  47  ;  obtains  with  Dudley  and  Cox 
a  grant  of  land,  58;  lieutenant-governor 
of  Massachusetts,  64;  Dudley  regains 
influence  over,  65,  66 ;  joins  with  Dudley 
in  projecting  a  bank,  166. 


Stuarts,  colonial  policy  of,  6-9,  22-23,  *8, 
40-41,  134. 

Sunderland  (Charles  Spencer),  earl  of,  op- 
posed to  Dudley,  192. 

TAJLER,  WILLIAM,  lieutenant-governor  of 
Massachusetts,  199. 

Treat,  Robert,  governor  of  Connecticut, 
added  to  Andros's  council,  41. 

Tyng,  Edward,  Dudley  marries  daughter  of, 
3 ;  member  of  Dudley's  council,  1686,  28, 
29. 

USHER,  JOHN,  lieutenant-governor  of  New 
Hampshire,  136-142 ;  character  of,  136- 
137 ;  attitude  on  land  question.  140-142  ; 
letters  of  Board  of  Trade  to,  137. 

VAN  CORTLANDT,  STEPHEN,  member  of 
New  York  council,  6r,  62. 

Vaudreuil,  Philippe  de  Rigaud,  Marquis  of, 
negotiations  concerning  the  exchange  of 
prisoners,  105,  113, 114, 123. 

Vetch,  Samuel,  negotiations  concerning  the 
exchange  of  prisoners,  105,  114,  115; 
tried  for  illegal  trade,  116-119,  184,  188; 
plans  for  expedition  against  Canada, 
123-125,  128. 

WALDRON,  RICHARD,  sued  by  Allen  in 
question  of  land  titles,  140,  141. 

Walker,  Sir  Hovenden,  commander  of 
expedition  against  Port  Royal,  127-128. 

Warwick  (Robert  Rich),  earl  of,  governor- 
in-chief  for  the  colonies,  5. 

Wells,  attacked  by  Indians,  109. 

West  New  Jersey,  Cox  proprietor  of,  58; 
Dudley  commissioned  deputy-governor 
of,  59- 

Weymouth  (Thomas  Thynne),  viscount 
of,  Dudley  conciliates,  181. 

William  EH,  King  of  England,  appoints 
Board  of  Trade,  6 ;  influence  of  declara- 
tion upon  uprising  in  Massachusetts, 
5 1 ;  approves  of  Leisler  trial,  64 ;  com- 
missions Dudley,  75,  100;  appoints  Sir 
William  Phips  governor  of  Massachu- 
setts, 79;  tacitly  recognizes  the  govern- 
ments of  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut, 
134- 

Winter  Harbor,  attacked  by  Indians,  109. 

Winthrop,  Fitz-John,  member  of  Dudley's 
council,  28,  29;  refuses  to  give  aid  to 
Massachusetts,  120;  controversy  over 
troops  and  command  of  troops  from  Con- 
necticut, 143-145  ;  letters  from  Ashurst 
concerning  Dudley,  181-182. 

Winthrop,  John,  governor  of  Massachu- 
setts, 204,  205. 


INDEX 


239 


Winthrop,  John  (the  younger),  governor  of 
Connecticut,  ideas  concerning  a  bank, 
165. 

Winthrop,  Wait,  member  of  Dudley's 
council,  28,  30;  member  of  Andres's 
council,  44 ;  prepares  charges  against 
Dudley  and  Andros,  54;  joins  with 
Dudley  in  projecting  a  bank,  166; 


hostility  to  Dudley,  177-178;  men- 
tioned, 205. 

Wise,  Reverend  John,  sentenced  by  Dud- 
ley, 48. 

Woodbridge,  John,  ideas  concerning  a  bank, 
165. 

Worsley,  Sir  Robert,  patron  of  Dudley, 
69- 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


^m  ifeft 

RENEWAL 

REC'D  URL 


URL 


MAR    6197? 

^ 

IA6I 


2  8  /97S 


Form  L9-327»-8,'57(.C8680s4)444 


3  1158  00426  8131 


A    001  337  397    i 


